Hello:

I don't want to talk about religious stuff. I want to talk about science stuff... Or, maybe it's philosophical stuff with a little religion thrown in. I don't know.

Not too long ago, like when you were born, who we are in terms of evolution, was left to natural occurrences. THESE days, however, your children will be able to DESIGN their children.

In the process, of course, we're going to cure a lot of diseases. That's good, isn't it? But, while we're doing that, we're changing our own evolution.

Should we be doing this stuff?

And, to those of you who don't believe in evolution, how is it, that we can change what you don't believe in?

excon

That genie was out of the bottle the first time we discovered that chewing on white willow bark relieved pain.


Edit . The real question I have is why are humans so unique that they can literally defy the "laws " of evolution ?

edit . the real question I have is why are humans so unique that they can literally defy the "laws " of evolution ?

Because we're smarter than everyone else. We figured out how to cure and treat disease. We don't cast aside deformed or defective people. We have society, which treats everyone as an equal, giving them equal chance. Someone who has a genetic predisposition to disease X can still find a mate and reproduce, thus passing disease X on to their offspring. Other animals don't do that - if you ain't right, no one wants your baby! Despite all of that, though, we still evolve... just much... much... slower.

To excon -

I'm torn on this issue. On the one hand, to eliminate (or significantly reduce) certain diseases is great, but it's a bit creepy to me that you can fill out a checklist for your kids. It's like a made to order omelet...

People used to die when they got old. Sick and deformed babies used to die in utero or at birth or by the time they got to be toddlers. My husband's 94 y/o aunt wants so badly to die but medical science is keeping her alive, curing MRSA and C. diff when she got it, giving her morphine to kill pain, stuffing her with antidepressants so she will be social and eat and get out of bed. She wants to leave her money to nieces and nephews, but her life savings is being spent to keep her alive. My uncle saved money all his life to enjoy his old age that he ending up spending in a nursing home. (Sorry about this off-subject paragraph. I had to vent.)

I like medical science, but I want to be surprised when the baby arrives.

The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.
Charles Darwin 1859

Because we're smarter than everyone else. We figured out how to cure and treat disease. We don't cast aside deformed or defective people. We have society, which treats everyone as an equal, giving them equal chance. Someone who has a genetic predisposition to disease X can still find a mate and reproduce, thus passing disease X on to their offspring. Other animals don't do that - if you ain't right, no one wants your baby! Despite all of that, though, we still evolve... just much... much... slower.

To excon -

I'm torn on this issue. On the one hand, to eliminate (or significantly reduce) certain diseases is great, but it's a bit creepy to me that you can fill out a checklist for your kids. It's like a made to order omelet...

The problem is that the weak now survive thanks to medical science. The gene pool while more diversified due to the massive numbers surviving birth, birth defects and disease is being diluted with weaker gene lines and lack of exposure to certain virus's; etc.

As for designing kids, here is the problem. If you increase one attribute, which other attribute takes a back seat? Or what took either seconds in the design by God, or billions of years of evolution and natural selection to design with checks and balances built in; becomes suddenly unbalanced by human tinkering; does it leave the human race even more vulnerable to a catastrophic human race ending virus that we can't fight off or have the medical science come to defend us. HIV/AIDS is a good example, we can't cure it, and we don't have vaccination against it. Can you imagine if the delivery system for such a virus was through the air (we could simply get it by breathing in air infected by the breathing of a carrier/infected person) rather than the current sexually transmitted variety.

Also, there will only be a select few able to design their kids (by the way, sounds like the Nazi doctor trying to create a pure Ayran race) because of the cost. Just another way to have a huge underclass of human's in time, and that could lead to slavery or serving those who are superior. There will be no more; if you work hard enough you can be anything even the President of the United States, cause chances are if you were not born with genetic modifications you are going to be a dumb in comparison and whatever good paying jobs that are out there, you won't even be able to understand.

It scares the crap out of me that those in control of the profit of science will be helping us decide how to change human kind. I would rather leave it to God, fate, evolution; because if there is a profit to be made or a military use for enhanced humans I fear we are going to screw more than we are going to help in the long run.

Hello:

I don't wanna talk about religious stuff. I wanna talk about science stuff..... Or, maybe it's philosophical stuff with a little religion thrown in. I dunno.

Not too long ago, like when you were born, who we are in terms of evolution, was left to natural occurrences. THESE days, however, your children will be able to DESIGN their children.

In the process, of course, we're going to cure a lot of diseases. That's good, isn't it? But, while we're doing that, we're changing our own evolution.

Should we be doing this stuff?

And, to those of you who don't believe in evolution, how is it, that we can change what you don't believe in?

excon



You are not talking of evolution but an attempt at design.

Evolution is chance mutations acted upon by natural selection.

Think about it, number one killer in the world is diarrheal illnesses, but with sanitation and clean water that has been greatly reduced in advanced countries. But what gets you when you get older is Heart disease and or cancer primarily. A huge factor is behavioral. Eat a well balanced low fat diet, exercise regularly, keep at an ideal weight, get your routine screenings and check ups. We know this, but we still do things NOT to keep healthy.

Then there are potential side effects to the "cures"

Autism has not been scientifically proven to be linked to childhood vaccinations, but a few percent refuse these vaccinations, that for the population as a whole is very beneficial.
Every potential benefit also carries some risk. Look up baycol or rezulin or vioxx or avandia.

The science is already there to help genetic defects like alpha 1 anti trypsin deficiency, and hopefully one for juvenile diabetes or cystic fibrosis.

But this is by using intelligence and design. Something I believe in more so than chance evolution.







G&P

More science fiction, remember this movie? ;)

Gattaca (1997) - Plot summary (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/plotsummary)











g&p

Hello:

I don't wanna talk about religious stuff. I wanna talk about science stuff..... Or, maybe it's philosophical stuff with a little religion thrown in. I dunno.

Not too long ago, like when you were born, who we are in terms of evolution, was left to natural occurrences. THESE days, however, your children will be able to DESIGN their children.

In the process, of course, we're going to cure a lot of diseases. That's good, isn't it? But, while we're doing that, we're changing our own evolution.

Should we be doing this stuff?

And, to those of you who don't believe in evolution, how is it, that we can change what you don't believe in?

excon



We can't know until we tried it.

If it works out for the best, then wonderful.
If not - woopsie.

I don't think anyone can actually tell you if we should be doing this. No one know's and how could they ?

Jillian . My edit was an attempt to bring the discussion to philosophical stuff.

Can someone explain scientifically why humans are seemingly so much more advanced than any other animal life on the planet ?

Can someone explain scientifically why humans are seemingly so much more advanced than any other animal life on the planet ?Hello tom:

Because some of us have big brains.

excon

No it is deeper than that . There is a huge divide between the rest of the animals and humans... why ?

no it is deeper than that Hello again, tom:

No, it isn't. But, if you have a theory, I'd like to hear it.

excon

Elephants boast the biggest brains by volume of all land animals but are not more highly evolved than humans .

I do not have a scientific theory but a philosphical belief as to why there is a huge gap .

What exactly is changing? Are we growing kids with wings now?

What exactly is changing? Are we growing kids with wings now?Hello again, Steve:

That's a thought. We might just be able to do that in short order... But, for now, we can breed 'em to be WITHOUT disease, tall, blue eyed, muscular, brainey... Stuff like that.


Elephants boast the biggest brains by volume of all land animals but are not more highly evolved than humans .Hello again, tom:

And, you know that how? Because elephants don't drive cars? Maybe they've evolved beyond the need for cars.

Why do you need a car anyway? To drive to work so you can pay for your house?? Elephants don't need to mess around with such mundane pursuits. They may very well have loftier ideals.

excon

I know that because they aren't pecking at a key board communicating complex thoughts over 3000 miles distance. I know that because I can live on land sea and in the air and they can't. I can alter my environment to suit me the elephant can't . For many reasons... including the ability to reason and make decisions on my actions that aren't instinctual I am a more evolved creature.

Hello again, tom:

So, you equate typing on a keyboard with being evolved. I don't. I'll bet the elephant doesn't either.

excon

I doubt the elephant thinks about much at all.

I bet the elephant doesn't think about it either. But I am still waiting for the Infinite monkey theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem) to produce results.

Hello again, boys:

We agree, then. As I said earlier, the elephant may very well have loftier ideals.

excon

Hello again, boys:

We agree, then. As I said earlier, the elephant may very well have loftier ideals.

excon

Yeah, like adapting to climate change (http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0811-elephants_wcs.html).

Jillian . my edit was an attempt to bring the discussion to philosophical stuff.

Can someone explain scientifically why humans are seemingly so much more advanced than any other animal life on the planet ?

Philosophy is like theoretcal physics - it's just makin' stuff up as you go along! :D

We're more advanced because our ancestors all the way down the line demanded it. We went one way, elephants went another. It's a result of environment, opportunity, breeding, mutations, etc. We also started eating a different diet, our brains grew, and we started to dominate the landscape. We got smart enough to use weapons in an effective and consistent way, and our brains grew even more. Brain mass really doesn't mean much; it's <ahem> not about the size, but how you use it.

I haven't had a chance to watch this entire documentery, but what I've seen is pretty good: Becoming Human: Paleoanthropology, Evolution and Human Origins (http://www.becominghuman.org/). There's a section under "Anatomy" called "Big Brains" that is especially interesting.

Sorry, I'm gettin' all scienc-y again.

Here's an interesting TIME article from 1999 talking about "Designer Babies". It brings up all of the same ethical concerns we still have today. It also makes an interesting comparison to IVF treatment when it was first introduced, and how people rallied against it, but now it's common and accepted. Could designer babies play out the same way? Designer Babies - TIME (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,989987-1,00.html)

Cancer and the Shark Immune System (http://www.elasmo-research.org/education/topics/p_bite_on_cancer.htm)

EX;

Amazing that we consider ourselves " more evolved" and science is dedicated to improving quantity and quality of life yet, an ancient species, at least anecdotaly, has very low rates of cancer and infection.

If sharks are about 400 million years old, why did they stay with an arguable better immune system, while we humans, a newer species, are prone to infections and cancer?






g&P

With any astounding scientific discovery there will always be some egocentric scientist who will exploit it for personal gain and by that I mean power.
Its not the science that is to blame it's the power trip of people who want to change our evolution.
No it is not right,it is playing God and even though I believe the science is God inspired I do not believe he wants us to *recreate* man as we know it.
Good thought provoking questions all excon.. keep them coming ,you certainly create a lot of dialogue!

Nothing said so far makes an adequate scientific explanation for the cognitive rift between humans and animals. The philosophical explanation I have is not making it up as I go along. Rather ;it has been a standard belief of my faith for centuries.

As far as designer babies goes... there has to be an ethical standard applied to the research. As a society we have a right to set the standard.

Nothing said so far makes an adequate scientific explanation for the cognitive rift between humans and animals. The philosophical explanation I have is not making it up as I go along. Rather ;it has been a standard belief of my faith for centuries.

I was poking fun at philosophy (and physics), not you; please don't be offended. :o

I don't know what you consider adequate scientific evidence, but the difference in cognition is explained by the many, many years of different evolutionary paths. Those paths led to different diets, different environmental demands, different brain sizes and abilities, the development of language, the development of society and culture, etc. I'm not sure "adequate scientific evidence" can be presented in a short, simple statement (if that's what you're looking for); it requires a large overall understanding of evolution.


As far as designer babies goes... there has to be an ethical standard applied to the research. As a society we have a right to set the standard.

Very true. Such a standard is being applied to cloning techniques; this isn't much different. I don't think, however, the objective of the scientists performing this research is to breed a superior race, but rather, to eliminate disease. That objective, of course, could change down the line. That's where the big ethical implications come in to play.

Nothing said so far makes an adequate scientific explanation for the cognitive rift between humans and animals. The philosophical explanation I have is not making it up as I go along. Rather ;it has been a standard belief of my faith for centuries.

As far as designer babies goes.....there has to be an ethical standard applied to the research. As a society we have a right to set the standard.


I agree, what evolutionary advantage is there to music or art or philosophy or religion or self sacrifice?

If sharks are blessed with simple though more effective immune systems 100s of millions before humans, why was that successful system not carried forward to the succeeding branches in the evolutionary tree that culminates in us humans?

As it is medical science and biotechnology is purposeful use of intelligence and design.









G&P

what evolutionary advantage is there to music
Handel's assistant walked in to Handel's room after shouting to him for several minutes with no response. The assistant found Handel in tears, and when asked what was wrong, Handel held up the score he had finished to the 'Hallelujah Chorus' of his oratorio 'Messiah' and said, 'I thought I saw the face of God'.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah_(Handel)

I don't think, however, the objective of the scientists performing this research is to breed a superior race, but rather, to eliminate disease. That objective, of course, could change down the line. That's where the big ethical implications come in to play.

The debate has already begun as to how far to push the ethics.. During the campaign Sarah Palin taking Trig to term was a hot topic. We must not forget that neo-Darwinian eugenics was a bigger movement in this country than Nazi Germany .
David Morgan, Yale Study: U.S. Eugenics Paralleled Nazi Germany (http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45/302.html)

The debate has already begun as to how far to push the ethics ..During the campaign Sarah Palin taking Trig to term was a hot topic. We must not forget that neo-Darwinian eugenics was a bigger movement in this country than Nazi Germany .
David Morgan, Yale Study: U.S. Eugenics Paralleled Nazi Germany (http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45/302.html)

I didn't say the ethics debate hasn't begun - there will be people who are against this sort of gene manipulation no matter what; just as there are some people who oppose the HPV shot, vaccinations, or other medical treatments. Do you anticipate gene manipulation will become mandatory for one to get pregnant?

Eugenics and Darwinism aren't the same thing. There is a huge difference between socal Darwinism and the belief in evolution. Not a single evolutionist I know supports eugenics or social Darwinism. Darwin himself acknowledged using evolution as a social model was a bad idea.

Amazing that we consider ourselves " more evolved" and science is dedicated to improving quantity and quality of life yet, an ancient species, at least anecdotaly, has very low rates of cancer and infection.

If sharks are about 400 million years old, why did they stay with an arguable better immune system, while we humans, a newer species, are prone to infections and cancer?Hello again, in:

Couple things. We aren't "more" evolved. We're just as evolved as any species is at this time. ALL of us evolved at the same rate, so no species is any more evolved than any other. We happen to have evolved bigger brains. Sharks happen to have evolved better imune systems...

Ok, so?? There's a lot of species that have advantages over humans, including, apparently, sharks. But, we don't come from sharks so we wouldn't have inherited any shark stuff. Because we're "more" evolved, I guess you think that means we should have evolved all the good stuff that ANY species has, and discarded all the BAD stuff that ANY species has.

THAT just isn't so. I know you don't have an understanding of evolution except what your church tells you about it. But, a basic understanding of the subject would help you discuss it intelligently. You are designed to speak intelligently about it, aren't you?

Then you ask, ".. what evolutionary advantage is there to music or art or philosophy or religion or self sacrifice?"

I suggest we'll find out what those advantages are, IF we evolve into beings that create better music, understand philosophy better and grasp what religion and self sacrifice mean.

Maybe it'll be better. Maybe it won't. Evolution, even the man made variety, doesn't always work out. Maybe, in the process of making us better musicians, we'll make ourselves sterile and end mankind.

I don't know.

excon

Do you anticipate gene manipulation will become mandatory for one to get pregnant?



I don't know where it is going... the presumption in the posting is that it is all a good thing. I think the pursuit of gene manipulation to cure disease is fine .It should only be under taken in cases where the benefits will outweigh the risks, as in the treatment of life-threatening illness.

So long as we recognize and guard against the pandora's box of unintended consequences waiting to be unlocked then I'm satisfied .

But I see the rush to make a human Dolly ;or manipulation that simply alters the human genome for purposes other than curing genetic disease as very irresponsible.

I don't know where it is going .....the presumption in the posting is that it is all a good thing. I think the persuit of gene manipulation to cure disease is fine .It should only be under taken in cases where the benefits will outweigh the risks, as in the treatment of life-threatening illness.

So long as we recognize and guard against the pandora's box of unintended consequences waiting to be unlocked then I'm satisfied .

But I see the rush to make a human Dolly ;or manipulation that simply alters the human genome for purposes other than curing genetic disease as very irresponsible.

I agree, making changes for reasons other than curing disease is irresponsible. There's no legitimate reason for my kids to have my eyes and my husband's chin. I really think a lot of the hype around creating a "Dolly" or manipulating the genome to make actual designer babies (with pre-determined features, traits, etc) is inflated by the media. The vast majority of scientists do have morals and ethics, which is why the research is geared toward disease, not eye color. But let's face it, more people will read the story if they write about "super-babies".

Hello again, in:

Couple things. We aren't "more" evolved. We're just as evolved as any species is at this time. ALL of us evolved at the same rate, so no species is any more evolved than any other. We happen to have evolved bigger brains. Sharks happen to have evolved better imune systems...

Ok, so?? There's a lot of species that have advantages over humans, including, apparently, sharks. But, we don't come from sharks so we wouldn't have inherited any shark stuff. Because we're "more" evolved, I guess you think that means we should have evolved all the good stuff that ANY species has, and discarded all the BAD stuff that ANY species has.

THAT just isn't so. I know you don't have an understanding of evolution except what your church tells you about it. But, a basic understanding of the subject would help you discuss it intelligently. You are designed to speak intelligently about it, aren't you?

Then you ask, ".. what evolutionary advantage is there to music or art or philosophy or religion or self sacrifice?"

I suggest we'll find out what those advantages are, IF we evolve into beings that create better music, understand philosophy better and grasp what religion and self sacrifice mean.

Maybe it'll be better. Maybe it won't. Evolution, even the man made variety, doesn't always work out. Maybe, in the process of making us better musicians, we'll make ourselves sterile and end mankind.

I don't know.

Excon


By saying that humans are more evolved, I mean we are the dominant species on this planet and can change our environment [ at least that is what the global warming hysterics believe ]. Other than from our fellow human beings and microbes we are not prey to a more dominant species.

We don't come from sharks? But is that not what the evolutionists would have us believe ? We, humans, primates, mammals, amphibians etc... hundreds of milllions of years ago have a common ancestor . Is that not the darwinian tree of life doctrine?

And rather than attack my understanding of evolution why don't you answer the evolutionary question about the reproductive advantages of music or philosophy or art or religion?

Really, If I can sing Marvin Gaye's "Lets get it on" well enough to reproduce at a higher rate than my other karaoke competitors, which gene am I passing on? :p Oh that is right Darwin did not know of genes.

And speaking of evolutionary rates - why has the shark or sponge or chimp not evolved into some other form of life? Why has not humanity evolved wings or infrared vision or 2 hearts, all traits that have arguable reproductive and survival benefits.


Stem Cell Therapies For Heart Disease (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081030093705.htm)




"Our findings showed that heart attack patients possess [they don't need embryonic stem cells] the functional cells needed to repair blood supply to their heart, but they're hidden amongst a muddle of others."....


"The team have made fascinating discoveries about our DIY repair systems and have translated them into practical use. They've intelligently employed the body's own strategies to develop a method that may take us a step closer to truly effective stem cell therapies for heart patients."






Notice that there is no mention of evolution being necessary for this ;)

Science is observable [ something that cannot be said for how we "evolved" - who saw this? ], repeatable, and can be tested .

Faraday or Joule could repeat experiments on magnets and energy over and over and over. Their experiments could be replicated by others. The laws they described led to inventions – motors, space heaters, electromagnets – that validate their conclusions every day.

Before you counter with, oh but we breed, have scientists created a new species of lab rat or fruit fly or a new type of dog?

So evolution has nothing to do with potential cures to diseases. Science, intelligence, and design are the only prerequisites.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But on to the question, if we could have designer babies:
Would that lead to genetic discrimination - " Gattaca " like?






g&p

Ex,
Great question..

Do I want a designer baby? Probably not.

If I were to ask my friend who's niece has a half developed brain and needs constant therapy to make sure the little one learns as much motor coordination as she grows up,may have a different answer.

The question is whether designer babies will actually survive in a world where new threats are discovered everyday due to pollution,contamination and new found diseases.

Does the designer baby become immune to all diseases or does it die instantly when faced with a new disease rather than build up on its existing immune system?

And if we are going to be eliminating diseases that may threaten a baby, does this include genetic diseases as well as diseases contracted from outside sources.

And by designing do we mean that we can choose the talent,moods,emotional balance of the individual as guaranteed to be normal as the baby grows up?

And normal according to who's standards I wonder... my definition of normal may very much differ from the definition of normal by, say a serial killer (who has the resources to have his/her own designer baby.Dread to think what that list will include!).

Now comes the question of who decides which parent can have their wish list fulfilled?
Do only the rich elite get to have their designer babies?
Does this mean that the designer babies will all grow up to be great leaders and eliminate the need for any discord between the rich and the poor?
And the gap between the designer and non designer babies.Are the DB's going to ace in their chosen fields that there is no room for the average individual in the institutions related to study or work?

I am probably babbling here.. it is late and maybe I should post when I am less sleepy,with less chance of making a fool of myself. :)

Firm

Excellent points to ponder. Not babbling in my book . What is the average life span of the "Dolly "successes ? Do they even tell us how often they discard the failed attempts ?

What is the average life span of the "Dolly "successes ? Do they even tell us how often they discard the failed attempts ?Isn't "Dolly" a clone?

Yes, dolly was a clone. Interesting to read she was thought to have been born the genetic age of six years old.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolly_(sheep)

On designer babies: if substantial numbers of parents already support their child undergoing plastic surgery for leg extensions and nose jobs for what they believe will give their child a better chance in life (not just for survival), then we can safely assume an equal number of parents would readily agree to their child being given favoured attributes in utero. So no doubt there would be a ready market, if allowed to take it that far.