REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Already?

POSTED BY: WISHIMAY
UPDATED: Wednesday, July 4, 2012 05:00
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1307
PAGE 1 of 1

Saturday, June 02, 2012 6:44 PM

WISHIMAY


I saw the article about this less than six months ago, but I didn't think someone would be actually pushing the idea for years...

For the record, I say if you absolutely have to have kids, and there is a good chance you would pass on something horrific, I don't see any huge ethical problem with doing this. I do imagine many religions will react violently, and I can sure see the need for a contract before the "merging" takes place, those being just two complications....If I had any clue what I was passing along then, and had access to this, I think Id've done it.

Think about what this would mean just to healthcare costs to eliminate all those affected diseases... The only real bad is I think is we would lose out on the opportunity to eventually understand why those diseases happen and human sciences would lose out(which could still be understood later, but a lot less urgently), but all the people that would gain a life free from the current hells.... boggles the mind....



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2153748/Cameron-backs-controve
rsial-IVF-plan-create-children-parents.html

If you were to have a child, would you do it??

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 02, 2012 6:52 PM

CATPIRATE


We can make the human race better. A super race now and forever. "Ja Wohl, Mein Fuhrer".

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 02, 2012 6:56 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


LOL...

Thanks Wish!

I was going to comment on a full moon tonight, even though it looked full, but the Scientists say it's not for 2 more days...

So I don't know what to blame it on....

But You've given me the outlet to post this awesome video on two separate threads in one night..... :smokin:


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 02, 2012 8:09 PM

FREMDFIRMA


I really have to think about this one a bit - cause of my go-round with recent health complications, it was discovered that some genetic component of mine gives me a hell of a lot better resistance to not only the syndrome in question, but many of it's satellite effects. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Febrile_neutrophilic_dermatosis Mind you this is a condition doctors know almost NOTHING about, not what causes it, nor how to cure it, and the only treatment they have is via trying random stuff till something sorta-maybe-kinda worked. And yet, provided I am not stressed out my body can fight it to a complete standstill.

I have no love for the modern medical care system, and I did in fact demand a little recompense in waiving deductables for past and future care, but fekkin hell, if it helps someone else in worse condition, they can have all the damn samples they want.

So when it comes to the notion of short-circuiting stuff that is genetic-hereditary, I really gotta think on it before I make a moral judgement call on it, cause this situation has really made me re-think how I feel about human genetics and the possibility of tampering with them, even brought me into some conflict with mine own theology...

Sometimes you really do just have to roll the dice, I think.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 02, 2012 9:13 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

I think the only danger lies in the possibility of screening something out that seems detrimental but has unanticipated benefits.

--Anthony

Note to Self: Raptor - women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts. Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die. Never forget what these men are. “The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 02, 2012 9:51 PM

BYTEMITE


Nobody is perfect, and genetics (and mutations) just does not work the way 19th century eugenicists would like it to, so screening and gen-modding/cell-manipulation to eliminate genetic disorders seems like the height of futility to me.

Not only can you NOT eliminate all genetic disorders, but as Anthony points out, you probably don't want to. Rather you want a workable healthcare system that functions within the limitations of society, economics, and technology to give even the worst off a chance at a decent quality of life.

Basically whenever I hear about stuff like this, it's just excuses and justifications hiding a far more sinister agenda. Down this way lies a dark road, talks of genetic superiority and lines and rules about who can breed with who and who can breed at all and obfuscation and breeding out various genetic lines through sleight of hand.

When the wrong question is asked - how can we eliminate genetic disorders versus how can we improve general quality of life - more problems are created then solved. As we can't really ever fully change humans or prevent imperfections, the answer isn't with the people or the genetics, it's with the system and the society and the technology.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 03, 2012 3:18 AM

GEEZER


If this process were to be used only to remove tendencies toward genetic diseases, that'd be fine with me.

But it won't.

Designer babies, anyone?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 03, 2012 7:48 AM

BYTEMITE


^Exactly. Because that's the end goal all along. They'll try to hide it, but it'll happen, and the real agenda will come out.

"Sure, we'll help you create the perfect Nazi Aryan child." "Sure, we'll help you modify your children for super intelligence/super strength." "Oh, the screening says you shouldn't breed with this guy because of his existing genetic condition (he's black)." "Well, you're only a carrier for this disorder, so there's a 50 to 75 percent chance that your child won't have it, but since there's a risk and to avoid unnecessary burden on the health care system, we'll do the procedure even if the eggs/sperm were perfectly healthy to begin with."

"What, you mean we just used the healthy sperm donor/egg donor without removing the DNA, and the child is not biologically related to the problem parent? Oops! Our bad! trolololol"

"We've just removed all genetic predispositions for depression, paranoia, and anxiety! Welcome, children of a more compliant human race! Please turn in your predecessors for organ recycling."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 03, 2012 8:05 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

All of this reminds me of Gattaca. Fantastic film, if you all haven't seen it.

It's about a boy born just before genetic screenings of this nature become common, and how his dreams and aspirations are challenged in a world where your genetic heritage is the only thing that matters.

--Anthony



Note to Self: Raptor - women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts. Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die. Never forget what these men are. “The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 03, 2012 8:07 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

Here is a clip from the movie. This clip shows his parents' decision to use the 'natural' method of conception for their second child.



--Anthony



Note to Self: Raptor - women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts. Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die. Never forget what these men are. “The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 03, 2012 8:43 AM

BYTEMITE


There's a huge difference between supporting scientific progress in medicine and being tricked by people with ulterior motives into opening up a pandora's box.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 03, 2012 11:12 AM

WISHIMAY


But...HINDSIGHT! You don't have it and I don't have it. There's no way to know if this OR ANYTHING would be a good thing or not. I think genetic manipulation is a given. It is going to happen, eventually. Like all things humanity does there will be abuses and corrections to the system. Fears have a place, but shouldn't be the point at which we stop. We can learn and adapt or stay in the dark ages forever... I tell ya, not a day goes by I don't think about what I could've been if a dozen things were fixed on me before I was born. Would I give up a piece of my "uniqueness" in order to get through a day without suckage?? Yer damn straight I would...

PS. LOVED Gattica!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 03, 2012 12:00 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER




Testing for genetic defects has already been happening with IVF procedures. Parents who are concerned about passining on genetic problems can use a testing procedure on embryos before implanting and screen out those that have the disorder.

That is not the issue here. The issue appears to be that an embryo (and therefore a person) will have three genetic sources, which is the controvesial element.

My gut reaction is to say, no way. But my gut reaction is not always correct. I'll think about it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 03, 2012 12:17 PM

BYTEMITE


It's not about staying in the "dark ages," it's about tettering on the age of technological warfare, and watching those heedless few among scientists pursue it with the same monstrous thirst that set them after nuclear power.

Not all technology or science is good. Some things really are better left untouched. Especially when the implications and weaponization is obvious, when the intention to turn it against the people of the world is so blatant.

In the very least, I find it distasteful to take advantage of the hopes and dreams and fears of parents to gain access to and exploit their unborn children - I question whether consent can actually be given in such a case. Better for the children to be born, and treat them then, rather than try to make children perfect from the beginning, because they will fail, or worse.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 03, 2012 6:03 PM

WISHIMAY


Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE: Better for the children to be born, and treat them then, rather than try to make children perfect from the beginning, because they will fail, or worse.


That's what I'm saying, I'm not so sure this would fail, they've already succeeded in monkey trials. And treating a myriad of genetic mutations?? Riiight...like we do such a good job at treating... ANYTHING.

Access is the main problem in both pre-emplantation selection and this tri-merging thing, we are never going to eradicate all disabilities just for simple factors of biology and $$$. All I'm saying is that this could be another avenue to explore. And IF it were proven and IF I had access to it, I would be hard-pressed not to consider it...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 03, 2012 6:26 PM

1KIKI


Mitochondria are separate organelles that provide power to the cells and that have their own little packets of DNA - COMPLETELY SEPARATE FROM - the nuclear DNA that is the plan for your characteristics as a person. Mitochondria reproduce separately from the nucleus. They are so separate from the nucleus there's a theory that they're small commensal cells that live cooperatively within human cells.

I used to inhabit MassGen Neurology Web Forum. There was a truly heartbreaking blog from a mother who had to care for her daughter who had mitochondrial disease, who eventually died at home from it. It was a long, painful progression, from a daughter who could do all the things kids could do, who developed seizures that slowly became nearly non-stop, and eventually lost her ability to walk, to talk, to see, and hear - but who, from time to time, would make familiar gestures indicating her sister, her mother, and her love for them. I cannot imagine how painful it would be to see your child be slowly and painfully deconstructed in front of you, who still, in odd moments, turns to you with love. Even when she's dying.

It's not like the planet really needs more people. I can't imagine having such a need to have children that you WILL have them, mitochondrial disease be damned. But if you really really have to have those children, why not spare them an early, painful death.




NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 03, 2012 7:07 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:
Mitochondria are separate organelles that provide power to the cells and that have their own little packets of DNA - COMPLETELY SEPARATE FROM - the nuclear DNA that is the plan for your characteristics as a person. Mitochondria reproduce separately from the nucleus. They are so separate from the nucleus there's a theory that they're small commensal cells that live cooperatively within human cells.


I understand that. I was more speaking of things that I suspect these fertility specialists might also muck up while they're at it. Which if they could get away with it, I think they would. In Australia there was a program where they sterilized aboriginal people seeking treatments. Ethics and medicine aren't always in the same realm.

Quote:
It's not like the planet really needs more people. I can't imagine having such a need to have children that you WILL have them, mitochondrial disease be damned. But if you really really have to have those children, why not spare them an early, painful death.


*shakes head* You and I won't ever see eye to eye on this. Where you see over population, I see futures and potential. As for the last part, this is not the only way to address either pain OR death, and many of the other ways are far less questionable.

We don't yet know about whether this can even be done without consequences, which may be unlikely. Mitochondria are inherited as much as anything else, and produce proteins that go into the host cell and out into the body, maybe even across the placenta. It stands to reason a transplant like this might get flagged by the immune system. You might not actually be saving anyone from a painful death, just trading one for another, and endangering the mothers as well.

Then again, what's another mother or fetus dead, since there's too many people on this world anyway.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 03, 2012 8:00 PM

1KIKI


You make a lot of unsupported assertions, for example, that different mitochondria might trigger immune responses. And your claim that there is some alternate treatment or therapy for mitochondrial disease is a complete fabrication. I challenge you to name a single life-saving treatment for mitochondrial disease. Nuclear transfer is a routine technology, but if you object to it you will need to object to IVF itself as it brings its own unintended consequences. Finally, for you to conclude that the only thing I consider is the tally of humans on the plant is either a complete misreading of my post or a deliberate falsification of it.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 03, 2012 8:49 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Yep, really we should be able to make clear distinctions between procedures which are ethically used and can help people than those that are used for unethical purposes. Otherwise we'd have to dismiss all medical treatments because somewhere at sometime people were mistreated.

The fact is that testing now exists on a widespread level. To my mind, it is better to pre test an embryo than abort a fetus further down the track, and perhaps its better to design an embryo than to do either of those.

its also currently possible for a child to have three parents, the donor egg and sperm and the embryo nurtured and brought to term by a third person. It's a bit different to a three way genetic split, but its kind of on the way there.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 04, 2012 4:06 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:
Finally, for you to conclude that the only thing I consider is the tally of humans on the plant is either a complete misreading of my post or a deliberate falsification of it.


I wasn't saying that was your point, I was snarking about your comment about "too many people on the planet" versus your sincere interest in helping mothers and their children. Does not compute.

Perhaps you were joking about the "too many people on the planet" comment, in which case I apologize. But joking or not, that comment frankly has no place in a discussion about medical treatment, and will inevitably be called out.

Quote:
And your claim that there is some alternate treatment or therapy for mitochondrial disease is a complete fabrication.


There are other proposed treatments out there, such as medicating for defective proteins produced by the specific form of the mitochondria disorder, or creating artificial mitochondria, or gene therapy in the localized problem region of the disorder (not all mitochondria disorders are expressed evenly across the body) for either the mitochondria or a few of the mitochondria related/effecting genes encoded on nuclear DNA. None of those would require futzing around with the embryos, which could go wrong in a big way if there's a mess up, because instead of localized issues you'd propagate it across the entire person due to starting so early in development.

What you mean is that there are CURRENTLY not many developed or tested alternatives to the proposed treatment, but then, the proposed solution is not that tested itself. I am just not sure, when it comes to embryos, that medical professionals should be in the business of trying to fix something before they know it's broken. Especially when there could be complications. Gene therapy has it's own host of problems here, true, it's difficult to deliver the payload to the mitochrondria with our existing knowledge and technology and has it's own complications if messed up or used without complete understanding of the proteins and associated pathways, but ultimately I think that when we get this working it'll be a better solution to a number of problems.

Of course, with gene therapy you run the risk of some jokers trying to modify the germ cell lines and mess with progeny, so it's not perfect either. But in the very least in most cases of gene therapy you're not talking about a "fixing it before it's broken" issue. At some point I must be practical, so I don't actually roundly disapprove of everything to do with meddling with human genetics, but I'm not quite yet willing to compromise on other ideas if I think they're questionable. And every time gene modding and designer embryos gets mentioned I'm going to point out the possible problems and ethical issues that might come up, you betcha.

Hospitals and insurance companies tend to be very stingy about prescribing painkillers, hence my comment about alternatives to pain.

Quote:
You make a lot of unsupported assertions, for example, that different mitochondria might trigger immune responses.


Speculative, perhaps, but also a potential consequence. Mitochondria function as PART of the immune response. Oftentimes people with Mito disorders have compromised immune systems. Your transplant would give them working mitochondria, yes, the immune system would be better... If there are not incompatibilities that would be expressed between the existing flawed nuclear mitochondrial DNA and the mitochondrial DNA and the extracellular medium, or between expressed mitochondrial proteins in the child and the mother in utero.

I'm also imagining what might happen in the event of physical injury and inflammation - mitochondrial proteins released then would be identified as foreign and potentially trigger a much worse immune reaction.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 04, 2012 4:19 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:
Yep, really we should be able to make clear distinctions between procedures which are ethically used and can help people than those that are used for unethical purposes.


Every procedure can be unethical, but some are predisposed to be more unethical more often than others.

I have no problem with IVF, but I have big problems with designer babies. And in this case with mitochondria I think we don't know enough to predict all the consequences.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 04, 2012 4:53 AM

WISHIMAY


Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

I have no problem with IVF, but I have big problems with designer babies. And in this case with mitochondria I think we don't know enough to predict all the consequences.


I'm not so sure designer babies WOULD be a bad thing. My designer baby wouldn't look like any one else's designer baby... I think there is a vast range in preferences, and would continue to be so. Little people might still want little people babies, but if you can remove the negative aspects that would require them to have multiple corrective surgeries, that's not a bad thing either. There would always be people who want the full HEALTHY range, and not just of the aryan variety...I think we've come to enough of a technological age where physicality can be trumped by the technological, so the whole "race of supersoldiers" thing doesn't bother me either...



Kind of a non-issue anyway, since we can't do any of these things, but assuming we could, and fairly reliably...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 04, 2012 5:25 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:
Kind of a non-issue anyway, since we can't do any of these things, but assuming we could, and fairly reliably...


Ultimately the problem is that it would directly/indirectly/accidentally/purposefully result in genetic bottlenecking for the species. Loss of diversity is bad when it comes to natural selection and survival considerations.

Consider. Someone gets their embryo augmented so they're smarter or stronger or faster, using a particular angle of approach for that trait. Maybe you give them more white muscle tissue. Maybe you engineer them so they're always 'roided out. Maybe you give them eidetic memory. Maybe you hybridize with two different complementary genes for height, or intelligence, or strength.

Society is currently set up so that children essentially compete with each other, either in school intellectually (which later influences their career), or in sports. Parents want their kids to be "the best." So they see or hear that you or other people have done it, and feel pressure to do the same so their own kids can compete.

Now imagine a significant portion of the population has these traits, but something comes up that works against them. The white muscle tissue kids are fast in short bursts, but might tire under conditions that would require endurance (say, swimming). The eidetic kids would be very susceptible to PTSD and from that might be susceptible to other emotional disorders. The 'roided out kids might end up being sterile because it turns out you CAN have too much testosterone.

Under more moderate expression of genes or more natural reproductive pressures and random process, these genes might have not been quite as detrimental, and the carriers would have survived to pass them on, for a future time when they might then become beneficial again. But because they were too specialized, those genes might be lost forever. Alternatively, genes that have been outcompeted won't disappear, but might become very rare, and you still end up with detrimental impact against a wide population.

Now imagine another scenario - not everyone can afford designer embryos. So one richer segment of the population becomes smarter stronger, faster, outcompetes the another part of the population. What happens? Nothing good, I can say that much. Probability is you're not going to create a benevolent society of philosopher kings, but a bunch of exploitative tyrants who will then decide that they're too important for menial labour. So they'll augment the strength of the other population and nothing else while working them to death. Probably interbreeding would be discouraged. A society that divided probably won't last peacefully, and I can't say which group will come out on top, but both sides will have losses, and you'll probably lose some important genetic traits along the way.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 04, 2012 5:46 AM

BYTEMITE


1kiki: Ooh, I just had a thought. You MIGHT be able to get around some of these immune system things I brought up if you focus the proposed mito treatment on developing cells that would become the central nervous system, since inflammation response works a little differently there.

Although making a chimera nerve system might just make immune response issues worse, and feasibility of injecting mitochondria into some multiple number of proto-nerve cells is probably low. But I just don't know about a nucleus transplant into an unfertilized egg for the mitochondria, long term complication risks seem unacceptably high.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 04, 2012 6:48 AM

1KIKI


Byte

Your premise of an immune response is wrong. You need to get more background in biology.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 04, 2012 7:11 AM

BYTEMITE


Care to explain? Because foreign proteins -> immune response seems to be what pretty much happens like all the time. It's why organ transplants get rejected. Heck sometimes you get an immune response to NON-FOREIGN proteins that happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. And why blood types are so important during pregnancy.

If proteins are produced from foreign DNA that get expressed outside the cell - from apoptosis or from other means, like if those proteins are incorporated into the cell membrane, you get an immune response, correct?

In retrospect, attacking the cells by the body's own immune system might not be likely, as the HLA molecules and self peptides technically shouldn't change, and I suppose the scenario about physical trauma would be what happens anyway with the mitochondria (since mitochondria are the result of foreign DNA no matter how you look at it). But I can't rule out autoimmune disease as a possible complication - unlikely doesn't mean impossible. And it also seems like in utero incompatibility might remain an issue, much like with hemolytic complications.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 04, 2012 8:34 AM

1KIKI


Its' weird - we have the same avatar - it's like a person with MPD (bet you don't have that one!) arguing with themselves ...

Anyway ... mitochondria contain only 13 genes. The genes code for structural proteins (electron transport chain, membrane protein), not soluble ones. The DNA undergoes spontaneous mutation, any person at any time has variable populations of mitochondria, also variably sorted into different tissues. This would HAVE to be true for a woman healthy enough to have children, but whose children then have mitochondrial disease. In that case, the random sorting of mitochondria into oocytes simply came up snake eyes for the child, where they got too many of the bad ones and not enough of the good ones. In less severe instances these mutations have been associated with various mitochondrial impairments and proposed related diseases like Parkinson's or macular degeneration.

BTW, red cell incompatibility comes from surface proteins, not internal structural ones.

Anyway, I have to get some stuff done.



ETA: Let me put it this way - the immune system acts on the outer surface of the cells. It doesn't sense what's hidden away 'in there'. So, if something is tucked away inside the cell, how is the immune system going to reject it if it can't get close enough to chemically interact with it, and thus sense it? And the cells themselves don't have an internal immune system to sense foreign mitochondria. (The exceptions are mitochondria, which can sense viruses on their surface. But if the mitochondria are themselves stripped-down cells, it makes sense that they'd be able to sense 'foreign' proteins on their outer surface.)


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 04, 2012 9:23 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:
ETA: Let me put it this way - the immune system acts on the outer surface of the cells. It doesn't sense what's hidden away 'in there'. So, if something is tucked away inside the cell, how is the immune system going to reject it if it can't get close enough to chemically interact with it, and thus sense it? And the cells themselves don't have an internal immune system to sense foreign mitochondria. (The exceptions are mitochondria, which can sense viruses on their surface. But if the mitochondria are themselves stripped-down cells, it makes sense that they'd be able to sense 'foreign' proteins on their outer surface.)


This is getting into it. Yes, I know about the surface signaling proteins in cells and how it relates to an immune response.

I mentioned physical trauma and apoptosis, where the contents of the cells would be gargled all over the extracellular medium. That would cause an immune response, though whether that immune response would be more than the usual immune response due to the mismatch between nucleus-mitochondria-effecting DNA and the mitochondria, or if it would be the same because mitochondria is never self-cell anyway, I'm not sure. But it's a concern for me.

I also mention that mitochondria do produce some signaling proteins, even if most of their cellular function have basically been reduced to energy factory. They also release some waste products, which have to be removed from the cells. I'm not sure if any of this could identify as an antigen outside the cells, but I also can't say that it won't, for similar reasons as the above.

I found information which satisfies me about the in utero problem. I wasn't sure which cells pass through the placenta. I know blood cells do, but they don't have mitochondria. Wasn't sure about other cell kinds.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 04, 2012 9:34 AM

1KIKI


Even IF cell contents are released and sensed by the immune system, intact mitochondria within cells are hidden from the immune system, and protected by virtue of being in a location that can't be sensed. And since mitochondria don't make soluble proteins, or proteins made to fuse with the cells membrane, they remain separated from the immune system

It's the same process that allows herpes, chickenpox, HIV and select bacteria to avoid immune attack, by being hidden from the immune system within cells. Unlike mitochondria though, those infectious agents DO make soluble proteins, and proteins made to fuse with cell membranes, as that is how they spread from cell to cell and person to person. So they are sensed at least a little bit, at some time, by the immune system.

I can’t think of a more obvious, brick simple way to explain it.

If you wish to continue to posit an autoimmune problem, then come up with a mechanism by which the immune system can interact with mitochondria in the cells.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 04, 2012 9:40 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:
Even IF cell contents are released and sensed by the immune system, intact mitochondria within cells are hidden from the immune system and protected by virtue of being in a location that can't be sensed.


Normally, yes. I'm less sure in this case. You have cell nucleus with some mitochondria-related genetic coding, and you have mitochondria and mitochondrial DNA that may not match up. And then you have extensive mitochondria intercellular signaling pathways, some of which regulate the immune system.

Big, complicated, inter-reliant system could become a big, complicated mess.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 04, 2012 9:49 AM

BYTEMITE


Hmm. And now that I say that out loud, I wonder if that has anything to do with a lot of the failed embryos that never implant. There seems to be some problem people run into in certain cell cultures and nucleus transplants with the mitochondria compatibility.

Maybe this isn't an issue not because there isn't a reaction, but because the embryos never grow past a certain point due to the incompatibility.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 04, 2012 9:54 AM

1KIKI


banghead.

You have a LOT of nuclear DNA related to mitochondria. Of the roughly 3000 mitochondrial proteins only 13 are made by mitochondrial DNA, the rest are made by the nucleus. And while some mitochondrial diseases are related solely to mitochondrial DNA problems, the rest seem to be related to a mismatch between somatic DNA and its related proteins, and mitochondrial DNA and its related proteins, leading to inefficient function. But variations in mitochondrial DNA do not sensitize the immune system to mitochondria. BTW the only immune 'signaling' - if you could call it that because it doesn't actually invoke the immune system - is the signal from the mitochondria to the cell to undergo apoptosis.

I BEG you - please get some basic information before you start waving your hands and gibbering about 'somehow', and using phrases that you don't seem to actually understand. The world isn't magic, things happen by processes. The more you know about processes the less you have to be concerned about magical somehows. And when you find yourself resorting to somehows, stop to think that maybe you just don't know enough to draw conclusions.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 04, 2012 10:15 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:
Its' weird - we have the same avatar - it's like a person with MPD (bet you don't have that one!) arguing with themselves ...






Hello,

It is VERY confusing to read these posts because you both use the same portrait, and visually it looks like one person arguing with themselves. Even the tone is very similar, though the arguments are different.

--Anthony



Note to Self: Raptor - women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts. Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die. Never forget what these men are. “The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 04, 2012 10:22 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:
I BEG you - please get some basic information before you start waving your hands and gibbering about 'somehow', and using phrases that you don't seem to actually understand. The world isn't magic, things happen by processes. The more you know about processes the less you have to be concerned about magical somehows. And when you find yourself resorting to somehows, stop to think that maybe you just don't know enough to draw conclusions.


I had REASONS for suggesting what I was. Just because you don't really care why I'm asking doesn't make it magical thinking.

It occurs to me to be offended that you thought I knew so little about the immune system and mitochondria. You don't think highly of me at all. In fact, you seem to think I'm pretty stupid.

Well, that's nice. Since you're not even giving me any credit at all as another thinking individual who may actually know a thing or two about biology even if it isn't my field, I see no reason to further frustrate you.

I found my own satisfactory conclusion to the questions I was asking, and so I'm done now. I was having fun talking to you up until this. Though I guess it's as much as I deserved, seems I pissed you off earlier with my snarking.




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 04, 2012 12:24 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Quote:
Yep, really we should be able to make clear distinctions between procedures which are ethically used and can help people than those that are used for unethical purposes.


Every procedure can be unethical, but some are predisposed to be more unethical more often than others.

I have no problem with IVF, but I have big problems with designer babies. And in this case with mitochondria I think we don't know enough to predict all the consequences.


Designer babies is a loaded term. It implies people determining beauty, brains, athleticism and those sort of traits as per Gattaga.

But these sort to technologies are proposing to screen out severe genetic diseases. I don't know if you can imagine having a severely disabled child who will die very early in it life, probably in pain or making the decision to terminate a foetus because of severe disabilities. This aint like a heart warming disney movie where everyone's life is made fuller by adversity, this is sheer heartbreaking agony for those involved.

So while I am not fully on board with some of these technologies, I don't like the inference that people who use them are 'designing' babies. I think that is harsh.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 04, 2012 12:31 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:
So while I am not fully on board with some of these technologies, I don't like the inference that people who use them are 'designing' babies. I think that is harsh.


Fair enough, I suppose. Really my complaint about the screening out genetic conditions is that it results in genetic bottlenecking, which is something designer babies also does, but that doesn't mean they're one and the same.

I don't think we should actually do this though. I think we should develop gene therapy enough to treat the kids after they're born. Provided people don't try to do anything to the germ line.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 04, 2012 2:38 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


I can see the positives and negatives of this, making everyone's lives easier seems like a good idea, but life is never that simple, I bet there's some hidden problem with this that we just don't know about yet, that would be just our luck in life. I'm not going to state an opinion about this yet, because on the surface it looks good, but we'll see.

I assume you're my pal until you let me know otherwise.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 04, 2012 4:05 PM

1KIKI


"It occurs to me to be offended that you thought I knew so little about the immune system and mitochondria."

Your arguments indicate you know very little. For your edification, I have quoted some of the points you made that were just plain wrong, or logically inconsistent.

"Rather you want a workable healthcare system that functions within the limitations of society, economics, and technology to give even the worst off a chance at a decent quality of life." But in THIS CASE - severe mitochondrial disease - there is NO chance of a quality of life. Or even life at all. If you understood this (as you now claim you do) then why did you make this argument?

"Sure, we'll help you create the perfect Nazi Aryan child." Really? And you expect to be taken seriously in THIS CASE - which is NOT about nuclear DNA but about faulty mitochondria?

"Better for the children to be born, and treat them then, rather than try to make children perfect from the beginning, because they will fail, or worse." Again this shows a gross misunderstanding. There IS no treatment. This isn't about perfecting children, or even changing their characteristics, this is about keeping children from living short and painful lives, and inevitably dying young.

"Where you see over population, I see futures and potential." You do? To have a future or any potential at all you have to have a life. Without life, all that potential you claim to be so fond of is over. If you are to be logically consistent then you should support the life- and potential-preserving treatment, not the death sentence of no treatment.

"Mitochondria are inherited as much as anything else, and produce proteins that go into the host cell and out into the body, maybe even across the placenta." No, they don't go 'into' the host cell, they're contained in the mitochondria UNLESS THEY'RE SIGNALING APOPTOSIS. No they don't go out into the body. And no, they don't cross the placenta.

"It stands to reason a transplant like this might get flagged by the immune system." No, it doesn't.

"Then again, what's another mother or fetus dead, since there's too many people on this world anyway." Yes, apparently all I care about are sheer numbers, and very little for pain and suffering leading to inevitable death.

"There are other proposed treatments out there, such as medicating for defective proteins produced by the specific form of the mitochondria disorder, or creating artificial mitochondria, or gene therapy in the localized problem region of the disorder ..." No, there aren't. "Abstract Mitochondrial respiratory chain disorders are the most prevalent group of inherited neurometabolic diseases. They present with central and peripheral neurological features usually in association with other organ involvement including the eye, the heart, the liver, and kidneys, diabetes mellitus and sensorineural deafness. Current treatment is largely supportive and the disorders progress relentlessly causing significant morbidity and premature death. Vitamin supplements, pharmacological agents and exercise therapy have been used in isolated cases and small clinical trials, but the efficacy of these interventions is unclear. Conclusion There is currently no clear evidence supporting the use of any intervention in mitochondrial disorders. Further research is needed to establish the role of a wide range of therapeutic approaches."

"And every time gene modding and designer embryos gets mentioned I'm going to point out the possible problems and ethical issues that might come up, you betcha." It's not gene modification.

"If there are not incompatibilities that would be expressed between the existing flawed nuclear mitochondrial DNA and the mitochondrial DNA and the extracellular medium, or between expressed mitochondrial proteins in the child and the mother in utero." Shows lack of understanding of immune response. The immune system only sees and responds to the OUTSIDE SURFACE of the cells. But what happens in mitochondria, stays in mitochondria.

"And in this case with mitochondria I think we don't know enough to predict all the consequences." But we do know enough to predict the consequences of no treatment.

"You MIGHT be able to get around some of these immune system things I brought up ..." Those purported ones you imagined? Those ones?

"... more than the usual immune response due to the mismatch between nucleus-mitochondria-effecting DNA and the mitochondria ..." There is no internal cellular immune response.




NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 04, 2012 5:56 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:
But in THIS CASE - severe mitochondrial disease - there is NO chance of a quality of life. Or even life at all. If you understood this (as you now claim you do) then why did you make this argument?


They are developing this nucleus transplant with functional mitochondria donor cells treatment, but as far as I know it's not widespread yet or tested or approved beyond the experimental. Why do you attack me for speaking in possibilities as much as you are? I think the solution to this problem will be in gene therapy, which I admitted also is not very developed yet, just like this nucleus transport is not beyond experimental stages for treating mitochondrial disorders yet.

Quote:
Really? And you expect to be taken seriously in THIS CASE - which is NOT about nuclear DNA but about faulty mitochondria?


That was to Geezer and Anthony, who were talking about nucleus DNA and designer babies. Also, I've mentioned before that I often don't read articles before responding to them? I still haven't read the original article in fact.

Quote:
Again this shows a gross misunderstanding. There IS no treatment. This isn't about perfecting children, or even changing their characteristics, this is about keeping children from living short and painful lives, and inevitably dying young.


Possibilities, gene therapy.

Quote:
You do? To have a future or any potential at all you have to have a life. Without life, all that potential you claim to be so fond of is over. If you are to be logically consistent then you should support the life- and potential-preserving treatment, not the death sentence of no treatment.


GENE. THERAPY.

Quote:
No, they don't go 'into' the host cell, they're contained in the mitochondria UNLESS THEY'RE SIGNALING APOPTOSIS. No they don't go out into the body. And no, they don't cross the placenta.


Actually... Mitochondria can cross the placenta while they're inside cells, though that's generally more from the mother to the child, via antibodies the mother shares with the child. If mitochondria cross the placenta while in cells, obviously mitochrondrial proteins will cross as well while in cells.

And there are in fact proteins that are secreted by the mitochondria into the intercellular fluid. There's been studes measuring the changes in the concentrations excreted by the mitochondria in response to exposure to varying levels of glucose, which itself appears to be a response to insulin levels outside the cell. The mitochondria also excretes ATP and protons, though I don't consider that relevant to the discussion for reasons you'll consider obvious.

If they're secreted into the cell, they could be excreted from the cell. It's unlikely that there would be an immune response, even more unlikely an autoimmune response destroying the cells, the identifier proteins of the cells that protect them from the immune system wouldn't be affected. But I *can't rule it out.*

Quote:
"There are other proposed treatments out there, such as medicating for defective proteins produced by the specific form of the mitochondria disorder, or creating artificial mitochondria, or gene therapy in the localized problem region of the disorder ..." No, there aren't.


PROPOSED treatments. Just like this one in the original post. None of them technically exist beyond the experimental stages yet.

Quote:
It's not gene modification.


Other people were talking about it. Maybe you aren't the only conversation I've had in this thread.

Quote:
Shows lack of understanding of immune response. The immune system only sees and responds to the OUTSIDE SURFACE of the cells. But what happens in mitochondria, stays in mitochondria.


I don't think we've yet identified all the pathways that might go to and from the mitochondria yet. All the examples of a possible immune response I gave you, they were scenarios taking place OUTSIDE cells. I'm fully aware of this fact, and you continuing to attack me on it more suggests you just have no interest in reading what I'm saying.

Quote:
But we do know enough to predict the consequences of no treatment.


Gene. Therapy.

I'd appreciate it if you stopped attributing to me arguments I haven't made.

Quote:
There is no internal cellular immune response.


Of course not. That scenario was also about possible mitochondrial proteins reaching the outside of the cell via a here-to-now unknown pathway or via cell death. Cut-and-pasting removed the context.

I've since determined that even if there was nucleus-mitochondria incompatibilities, that would be such a fundamental problem with the cell that such a cell could never be viable anyway, so my previous concerns don't really matter.

Quote:
"Then again, what's another mother or fetus dead, since there's too many people on this world anyway." Yes, apparently all I care about are sheer numbers, and very little for pain and suffering leading to inevitable death.


And this is the root of it, you're angry about this snark, which I only said because, first, I know you don't feel that way, because obviously you care about these mothers and these kids, but second because I do not understand HOW you can say stuff like this in light of the previous.

I'd like to note that I have never once claimed to be CORRECT in this whole discussion, that I was speculating and exploring hypotheticals. But I resent how you impugn my intelligence and call me ignorant, probably as much as you resented my snark.

And now that I see that this was never fun for you, and the conversation certainly isn't enjoyable for me, and because I've abandoned the whole immune system angle of inquiry for reasons of my own, I see no reason to continue to discuss this.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 05, 2012 8:31 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

Fair enough, I suppose. Really my complaint about the screening out genetic conditions is that it results in genetic bottlenecking, which is something designer babies also does, but that doesn't mean they're one and the same.


My understanding is that nature also has a task in screening those things out, through miscarriage and death in infancy or childhood and that by our superior health treatments we actually screen them back in. Children with genetic conditions now may live to child bearing age whereas once they would not have. I think in some ways the human race has always done a bit of gene selecting. The old fashioned way was to choose a mate who ticked the desired characteristics you want to pass on and didn't have a history of nasty disease.

It's not the selection for or against characteristics that worry me, but the unforeseen impact of this kind of merging of genes.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 02, 2012 4:40 AM

1KIKI


Byte

Here's some interesting data about the growth of human population and lack of genetic selection the human race has experienced lately:

http://www.biosciencetechnology.net/News/2012/05/-Rare--Genetic-Varian
ts-Surprisingly-Common/

'Rare' Genetic Variants Surprisingly Common

A team of life scientists studied 202 genes in 14,002 people. The human genome contains some 3 billion base pairs; the scientists studied 864,000 of these pairs. While this is only a small part of the genome, the sample size of 14,002 people is one of the largest ever in a sequencing study in humans.

"Our results suggest there are many, many places in the genome where one individual, or a few individuals, have something different," Novembre said. "Overall, it is surprisingly common that there is a rare variant in the population.

"This study doesn't tell us how to cure a particular disease but suggests that disease in general may be caused by rare variants, and if you're trying to find the genetic basis of disease, it's important to focus on those variants. Understanding the genetic basis of disease provides clues to how the diseases work and clues about how to treat them."

The scientists discovered one genetic variant every 17 bases, which was a dramatically higher rate than they expected, said Novembre, a population geneticist who is a member of UCLA's interdepartmental program in bioinformatics.

Most of the time, only one person has the genetic variant and the other 14,001 do not.

"We saw lots of that," he said. "We discovered there are many places in these 202 genes where there is variation and only a few individuals differ from the whole group, or only one differs. We also see evidence that a substantial fraction of these rare genetic variants appear to be deleterious in a long-term evolutionary sense and might impact disease."

Human population growth helps to explain the large number of genetic variants, the scientists said.

"The fact that we see so many rare variants is in part due to the fact that human populations have been growing very rapidly," Novembre said. "Because the human population has grown so much, the opportunity for mutations to occur has also grown. Some of the variants we are seeing are very young, dating to population growth since the invention of agriculture and even the Industrial Revolution; this growth has created many opportunities for mutation in the genome because there are so many transmissions of chromosomes from parent to child in large populations."

SignyM: I swear, if we really knew what was being decided about us in our absence, and how hosed the government is prepared to let us be, we would string them up.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 02, 2012 7:51 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Skipped most of this discussion once it became too technical for me to follow easily. But:
Quote:
We can make the human race better
Straight out of Firefly. And Josh's entire point, as I saw it, is that it's a mentality that has always existed--whether for good intentions or for intentions the people doing it THOUGHT was good. It will never work; when we tamper with something, there's almost always a result we didn't anticipate which is worse than if we hadn't tampered.

If this comes to pass, and they really are able to avoid ALL the supposedly "bad" genetics, there go bipolars and other mental disorders. As postulated by Kay Jamison in "Touched With Fire", if you eliminate us, humanity has a good chance of stagnating. Bad as bipolarity (and schiz, etc.) is/are, you need us. It's those outside the "accepted" gene pool who help humanity evolve.

And yes, I stumbled across Gattica just recently and fell totally in love; it's come around a couple of times since then and I always tune in, whenever I run across it. Excellent movie, and excellent comment on just this issue.

In my opinion, humanity has to evolve on its own, slow as that may be, we can't "make" it evolve in whatever direction we might want.




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 02, 2012 8:11 AM

1KIKI


"... when we tamper with something, there's almost always a result we didn't anticipate which is worse than if we hadn't tampered."

I have no particular interest in 'tampering with' human genetics other than to screen out the most devastating genetic diseases - something that nature would have done for us in the past. But as the above article indicates, we humans have already tampered with our genetics. Just as humans have created domesticated versions of species that are adapted to the human-made environment and genetically different from their wild ancestors; humans have also domesticated themselves through creating for themselves an artificial environment to which we've become adapted. Because of that, basically, we've allowed genetic variations to survive that otherwise wouldn't have.

SignyM: I swear, if we really knew what was being decided about us in our absence, and how hosed the government is prepared to let us be, we would string them up.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 03, 2012 3:34 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Sure MD. On it's surface, this tech is as beautiful as any we've ever had before....

Just like every other technology "man" has developed....

Today, this technology is new, it's "on the fringe" and truly, only the upper-mid to rich can have it.

Like any other tech out there, once the kinks have been worked out and it has been improved in many aspects it will be made MUCH cheaper to MANY more people.

For a while, that extra income alone will satisfy the "bottom line" with the lower pricetag and the "ethics" still attached, but at some point, in order to further expand, it must be commercialized.





Twilight Zone's "Number 12 Looks Just Like You":



NOTE: This came out like 15 years before I was even born....







For a more crude reality of what this will turn into, imagine the "fast food" wars today, and what they might turn in to tomorrow......



"Carl's Jr.... :censored: You! I'm Eating!




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 03, 2012 4:48 AM

BYTEMITE


Commented on this on the other thread: I think the rate of mutation is basically just nature as usual. And since mutations are so very common, and statistically speaking most of them are going to be in the garbage DNA that doesn't code for anything, that really isn't an argument FOR genetic screening.

To me, even if we aren't experiencing as much natural selection, which I'm actually not sure is the case (I think we might be seeing something REALLY subtle), I would think that the answer is not to take genetic selection into our own hands to compensate.

Your argument about how to treat the people with genetic disorders with the technology and science we have NOW is a much better one. I'm willing to compromise in the short term, but I really don't think this is a long term answer. I think we ought to figure out how to treat these people after they're born, because even if we eliminate these disorders now, due to the rate of mutation they WILL just arise again in the future.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 03, 2012 4:54 AM

BYTEMITE


Jack: Idiocracy is entertaining, to be sure, but it's actually not based on the data we have available.

All of the data we have available suggests people are actually performing BETTER in general on the IQ tests than the previous generations, while the IQ tests have stayed relatively the same.

The scientific hypothesis is, in the age of information, we're perhaps not ACTING so smart, but despite that, we are basically drowning in information all the time, and ambient information is kind of sticking around in the back of our memories. Ultimately the question isn't whether this generation is dumber than previous generations (because the numbers don't agree with that conclusion), it's what different ways are we learning and applying our intelligence, and why does this generation lack the ambition to achieve the greatness previous generations have? Lack of ambition, not lack of intelligence.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 03, 2012 6:10 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


I don't discredit you in the least for that opinion Byte.....

But I ask you...... why?

Why do you hold on to it?

You and I are 60-120 IQ points above "change" even though we probably both scored at 99% on the "Iowa's" growing up.....

We didn't make shit for ourselves....

There is "wheat", and there is "chaf"

The only scary thing I have in my life is talking to people here....

When I'm gone here, as much as some people want me to be, it is because...... well.....

Right or left.............







Nobody likes me talking, from either side....

Anybody with "no rent" who is able to cut their "land-rent" in less than half is a scary person to them....

Nothing illegal here, just making things right....





Check yourslef... that's right...

First M-Fing "White" guy or gal you've known that didn't change their positon in life simply because their position in life.....

Probably hurts even more for haters because I had the bulk of awesome Mexican Americans and Black Americains on my side.

Beers's legit .....

On me...



Let's party....

My demon allows everything that's cool......

You say I can't smoke weed, so it's been over 18 months....

Coke tomorrow wouldn't show on a test in 3 days....

F! the RWED!




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 03, 2012 6:24 AM

BYTEMITE


Actually I have no idea what I scored on the IQs, but apparently it wasn't that impressive. The point I was making is that the long-term trend analysis from the 1950s to the millenials shows that the general population of the US is IMPROVING on the IQ tests every generation.

Quote:
You say I can't smoke weed, so it's been over 18 months....

Coke tomorrow wouldn't show on a test in 3 days....


I never said that. Fourth of July is coming up, so, have a good holiday, whatever it is you do for holidays. I don't consider it my business.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 04, 2012 4:25 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE: Actually I have no idea what I scored on the IQs, but apparently it wasn't that impressive. The point I was making is that the long-term trend analysis from the 1950s to the millenials shows that the general population of the US is IMPROVING on the IQ tests every generation.

Quote:
You say I can't smoke weed, so it's been over 18 months....

Coke tomorrow wouldn't show on a test in 3 days....


I never said that. Fourth of July is coming up, so, have a good holiday, whatever it is you do for holidays. I don't consider it my business.


Nobody knows what they REALLY scored on their IQ tests

I wish I was about 80 IQ points stupider sometimes....

Then I could just walk around with a big smile on my face while people wiped my ass, listening to Ke$ha tunes and telling everyone I knew that she was my girlfriend.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 04, 2012 5:00 AM

1KIKI


"I think the rate of mutation is basically just nature as usual."

Sort of interesting thing I ran across - metformin, the diabetes drug, reduces the rate of cancer (up to 50%) in part by reducing DNA mutation, by reducing the level of reactive oxygen species (radicals) formed in the mitochondria then diffusing to the nucleus. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22262811 So mutation isn't a clock that ticks along steadily, it goes faster or slower depending on circumstances. And it doesn't require radiation to damage the DNA, just chemistry.

"And since mutations are so very common, and statistically speaking most of them are going to be in the garbage DNA that doesn't code for anything ..." The new thinking on the 'garbage DNA' is that it influences the activity of coding DNA. But you're right that if DNA mutation is random, then junk DNA would carry the most mutations.

"... that really isn't an argument FOR genetic screening." Unless there are very specific genetic changes they're looking for that are associated with devastating diseases. I wasn't advocating screening for these random rare mutations that were in the study, which I thought I made clear when I posted I was in favor of screening for devastating diseases. But if that didn't come through, I apologize.

SignyM: I swear, if we really knew what was being decided about us in our absence, and how hosed the government is prepared to let us be, we would string them up.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Been a chilly year so far...
Fri, May 24, 2013 22:06 - 77 posts
Solder hacked to death in public
Fri, May 24, 2013 19:41 - 34 posts
This Thread is Trolls
Fri, May 24, 2013 19:39 - 24 posts
Your Wednesday Dose of Crazy From the Right
Fri, May 24, 2013 19:25 - 11 posts
NBC: Holder Personally OK'd Fox Reporter's Warrant
Fri, May 24, 2013 19:23 - 8 posts
Anniversary
Fri, May 24, 2013 19:02 - 27 posts
Scandals are so stressful, time for another White House soiree
Fri, May 24, 2013 18:34 - 37 posts
Amid heckling, Obama defends drone strikes, vows to close Guantanamo
Fri, May 24, 2013 18:20 - 8 posts
McConnell: ‘There is a culture of intimidation throughout the administration’
Fri, May 24, 2013 17:58 - 23 posts
Your Friday does of Crazy From the Right
Fri, May 24, 2013 17:50 - 7 posts
Runsfeld grades Bush D-, Obama F
Fri, May 24, 2013 17:35 - 3 posts
Bank Lobbyists Help in Drafting Financial Bills - Derivatives to make a Comeback!
Fri, May 24, 2013 16:57 - 4 posts
 VIEW MORE TOPICS 

FFF.NET SOCIAL

OUR SPONSORS