quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

No we don't know, saying we do is conceit. Bye

It is a conceit to make statements when ignorant of current research.

Editing Genome With High Precision: New Method to Insert Multiple Genes in Specific Locations, Delete Defective Genes
Jan. 3, 2013 — Researchers at MIT, the Broad Institute and Rockefeller University have developed a new technique for precisely altering the genomes of living cells by adding or deleting genes. The researchers say the technology could offer an easy-to-use, less-expensive way to engineer organisms that produce biofuels; to design animal models to study human disease; and to develop new therapies, among other potential applications.

SOURCE

Current research means that research is ongoing and our knowledge is not conclusive so isn't Igorshand right and you are wrong?

Science and human knowledge is always ongoing. We deal with models that best fit empirical reality. To say that we don't know says nothing. In fact, should be an incentive to search further.

The discussion is specifically about genetics Duh!

The principle applies to all human knowledge from astrophysics to quantum mechanics.

quote:

ORIGINAL: IgorsHand

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Actually this all started with this statement by MeatCleaver

Don't blame me for the nonsense you write.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
We know exactly how genes work.

As far as we know only 5% of genes are used for coding, the other 95% are often written off as junk or useless. Basically it is a hole in the whole science of genetics like dark matter is frustrating astro-physicists. That's how simple genes are, if we don't know what they are for, ignore them.

I'll let Igorshand hit his head against a brick wall.

You're mistaken. Genes code for proteins. Noncoding DNA is not part of a gene. Some noncoding regions, those that are conserved for length or sequence, may have some function but most noncoding sections can be excised completely with no effect on the organism.

And no one is ignoring the noncoding regions. About the only research going on directed at the DNA level is trying to figure out what the conserved noncoding regions do. But we've got genes licked we know what they do and how they do it.

No we don't know, saying we do is conceit. Bye

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

No we don't know, saying we do is conceit. Bye

It is a conceit to make statements when ignorant of current research.

Editing Genome With High Precision: New Method to Insert Multiple Genes in Specific Locations, Delete Defective Genes
Jan. 3, 2013 — Researchers at MIT, the Broad Institute and Rockefeller University have developed a new technique for precisely altering the genomes of living cells by adding or deleting genes. The researchers say the technology could offer an easy-to-use, less-expensive way to engineer organisms that produce biofuels; to design animal models to study human disease; and to develop new therapies, among other potential applications.

SOURCE

Current research means that research is ongoing and our knowledge is not conclusive so isn't Igorshand right and you are wrong?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

No we don't know, saying we do is conceit. Bye

It is a conceit to make statements when ignorant of current research.

Editing Genome With High Precision: New Method to Insert Multiple Genes in Specific Locations, Delete Defective Genes
Jan. 3, 2013 — Researchers at MIT, the Broad Institute and Rockefeller University have developed a new technique for precisely altering the genomes of living cells by adding or deleting genes. The researchers say the technology could offer an easy-to-use, less-expensive way to engineer organisms that produce biofuels; to design animal models to study human disease; and to develop new therapies, among other potential applications.

SOURCE

Current research means that research is ongoing and our knowledge is not conclusive so isn't Igorshand right and you are wrong?

The fact that we can insert or delete multiple genes at precise positions on a chromosome means we've got how genes work and what genes do worked out.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

No we don't know, saying we do is conceit. Bye

It is a conceit to make statements when ignorant of current research.

Editing Genome With High Precision: New Method to Insert Multiple Genes in Specific Locations, Delete Defective Genes
Jan. 3, 2013 — Researchers at MIT, the Broad Institute and Rockefeller University have developed a new technique for precisely altering the genomes of living cells by adding or deleting genes. The researchers say the technology could offer an easy-to-use, less-expensive way to engineer organisms that produce biofuels; to design animal models to study human disease; and to develop new therapies, among other potential applications.

SOURCE

Current research means that research is ongoing and our knowledge is not conclusive so isn't Igorshand right and you are wrong?

The fact that we can insert or delete multiple genes at precise positions on a chromosome means we've got how genes work and what genes do worked out.

It means noting of the sort, it is just replacement engineering. When we can create or mutate a creature by design, then we would have an understanding genetics. We are a loooong way from there. We are only just beginning to get to grips with simple genetic disorders and we are moving very fast along that road either.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

We already mutate creatures by design and we don't create entirely novel lifeforms mostly for ethical reasons. So even by your own metric we understand what genes do and how they work.

quote:

ORIGINAL: IgorsHand

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

We already mutate creatures by design and we don't create entirely novel lifeforms mostly for ethical reasons. So even by your own metric we understand what genes do and how they work.

No we don't, we are playing around like children with building blocks. Meatcleaver's criteria would be a correct definition of understanding, if we can create something we have designed, we could say we understand genetics.

I'm off, I don't know why I'm getting into this when I've got a woman to chat up.

quote:

It means noting of the sort, it is just replacement engineering. When we can create or mutate a creature by design, then we would have an understanding genetics. We are a loooong way from there. We are only just beginning to get to grips with simple genetic disorders and we are moving very fast along that road either.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

It means noting of the sort, it is just replacement engineering. When we can create or mutate a creature by design, then we would have an understanding genetics. We are a loooong way from there. We are only just beginning to get to grips with simple genetic disorders and we are moving very fast along that road either.

ROFLMFAO!!!! Oh, shit! How funny. How absurd.

So, will you also say we will have an understanding of anatomy only when we create and design a creature, Dr Frankenstein? We won't understand a horse until we create one?

Your criteria is beyond irrational. We are not trying to be gods who create creatures. We are trying to find sources of illness, and some effective treatments.

We know how to create creatures already. You stick your little thingy in her whatzits and wait nine months.

quote:

We are trying to be gods, it is quite clear we are trying to be gods, the whole point of genetic engineering is to be gods Duh! Any idiot can see that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

We are trying to be gods, it is quite clear we are trying to be gods, the whole point of genetic engineering is to be gods Duh! Any idiot can see that.

The whole point of medical genetics is to relieve suffering. We need no metaphors to empathize with the mentally distressed. How can anyone say NO to that effort? What kind of know-nothing cruelty does it take to disparage the efforts of science to help the sick? Where do you get that from? Your position is shameful.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

In that context, we are only doing replacement engineering at the moment and don't fully understand genes because if we did understand genes, we would be creating by design and we are a million miles from that.

quote:

Your problem is you want something, anything, to hang me with. Well, I'm a good old athiest, I have no time for god, god is a myth, he is nothing, zilch.

quote:

One just has to look at the ambitions of geneticists to realise, genetics is not just about alleviating illness, mental or physical, the ambitions are much greater than that, alleviating illness are just positive side effects along the way.

quote:

As for disparaging science, who is? I quite neutrally said we are trying to be gods, it is quite clear we are trying to be gods, the whole point of genetic engineering is to be gods and that is what we are trying to achieve.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

To one old atheist from another, I can only ask you please don't feel so persecuted.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

In this thread we were talking about medical genetics plain and simple.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

The discussion was about seeking genetic markers to help diagnose illness and design drugs; not about genetic engineering. That was your original objection, Meat. How did we get off on genetic engineering? But, since you bring up the topic . . . human communities have been engaged in genetic engineering since the earliest agriculture. The current olives and figs of the Euphrates valley do not resemble in anyway the original wild varieties. And selective breeding for livestock has always been quite obvious. But my own viewpoint is that "playing gods" is a stretch. Nature will always be more awesome and more powerful than anything humankind will do.

However, I digress. All I have said from the start is that genetics is a legitimate tool for seeking answers to the riddle of people like Adam Lanza and Jame E Holmes (Aurora, CO) batman theatre killer because their behaviours are so far off the charts.

Thanks for an interesting discussion.