And it got me to thinking. All of the different kinds of dogs out there… people made them. In a way, selective breeding is genetic engineering. Now, selective breeding is just a way to take what you like and enhance it. So is genetic engineering, except without any mistakes or boinking. Not quite as fun for those involved, but far more effective. Just a thought.
Answer:
Genetic engineering has the potential for far more serious ramifications if you mess it up though.
Answer:
Haha, you said wiener. There is a slight different between the two, though they are both considered genetic engineering. Ethically, selective breeding conflicts with some religious beliefs. Also selective breeding is actually safer at the moment.There are long terms risks that we aren't aware of, and the method is still very much incomplete.
Answer:
Genetic engineering has the potential for far more serious ramifications if you mess it up though. So does engeneering a building. That doesn't mean it's too dangerous, it just means we need to be careful.
Answer:
**** it. My comment was jibberjabber. Haha, you said wiener. There is a slight difference between the two, though they are both considered genetic engineering. Ethically, selective breeding doesn't conflicts with some religious beliefs. Also selective breeding is actually safer at the moment. As for genetic engineering at the DNA level, there are long terms risks that we aren’t aware of, and the method is still very much incomplete. That isn't to say that there aren't a lot of genetically alter crop. A lot of the soy and corn supply have already been genetically alters. And for the US, it isn't required to put notification on packaging.
Answer:
I just think a lot more good would come of it than bad. Nothing is foolproof immediately, it takes research, and even then, it's not guaranteed to be flawless. But if that goes for everything, why the double standard with genetic manipulation?
Answer:
im confused and not understanding any of it,
Answer:
i fully support genetic engineering, fear holds back progress, if theres any chance to work out how bodies exactly work and improve them through gene manipulation, we should do. Its like saying people saying we shouldnt inject people with cowpox to remove smallpox, could well go wrong, gotta try, turns out it wiped out one of the worlds biggest killers
Answer:
I just think that people need to think of the future consequences more before doing some things. For instance putting hormones in chickens to make them grow faster may have sounded like a good idea to provide more food, but now we are seeing little girls starting their menstral cycles around the age of nine, long before they are mentally mature enough to comprehend what is going on with their bodies. I'm pretty sure that Agent Orange was thought to be a good idea at the time, but that didn't turn out very good either. There are just to many examples to list.
Answer:
Genetic engenering is far, far, fffffar from being generally applicable. Yes, there are genetically engenering plants out there and a spider-goat or two, but we aren't anywhere close to not making mistakes. There are actually a lot fewer mistakes in selective breeding.
Answer:
Genetic modification is not a viable solution at the time. It is both inefficient(Horrible success rate, ie, range from 1 percent or less.) and those that are successful suffer horrible genetic disorders. Dolly the sheep = famous example. There have been genetically engineered human beings, if I recall correctly around seventeen, but their progress has not been recorded. Basically we don't know who they are. Do you want to know the basic method they have for genetically engineering? Basically they take something really small, and mechanically remove it. Insert small need, remove, insert needle again and add something. The new techniques involve designing viruses to modify genes, which would theoretically be more effective, but would at the same time require stringent controls so that crazy virus outbreaks don't occur. It is nice to argue and say, well there are mistakes for everything, but that isn't how it works. You have to look at the information quantitatively as well as qualitatively. Oh, and as for small pox vaccines, horrible things do happen, people become crippled and mentally retarded. In fact, they aren't used anymore, since small pox has basically be annihilated. The reason they aren't used anymore? The risks are greater than the benefits. The same applies to our current understanding of genetic modification. This is why it is doesn't have a wide range of applications yet. It is also why we need to do more research on it.
Answer:
Pretty much, people just have this silly concept that God will choose what you should be like, all the way up until they get diseases, cancer, etc. Then its gods fault they are dying.
Answer:
So far, all of the reasons for nay-saying could be fixed with better funding. Besides, what's honestly more important? Blowing the s*** out of a deasert full of poor people, or learning more about what we can do with genetic reasearch? It's already looking promising, we just need to learn more.
Answer:
I am all for the advancement of genetic research. The reasons against genetic research? It is generally religious. There are a few that find it ethically problematic. The reasons against immediate APPLICATION of genetic research? Extremely low success rate. And high rate of health problems (also unpredictable) in those that are initially successful. The reasons against immediate application is NOT reason again research. If people are already biased against it, they just tend to use the other arguments more. This causes unnecessarily association of factual problems with their beliefs. This = bad, in my opinion. That association isn't beneficial to discourse.
Answer:
As a Christian I don't have a problem with research, I don't actually think enough research is being done on several fronts. My problem is with the actions taken before all the facts are in. I only bring up my faith because of previous comments on this post, I'm very well aware that some religious zealots have put a stop to some scientific research and developements based on their own personal beliefs.
Answer:
way i see it, if theres a god, he plagued me and made me diseased, its upto science to fix me :)
Answer:
I'm just disgusted with animal testing. That's my only problem.
Answer:
I'm just disgusted with animal testing. That's my only problem. Yeah i agree
Answer:
Animal testing... I agree that testing makeup in ways that makes animals go blind is messed up, but what if a cure for cancer was discovered through animal testing?
Answer:
No species should suffer for the comfort of another. Animal testing is primitive and unnessecary, there are other ways, like growing human tissue, to find these cures. But of course, they're more expensive, so guess which experimental subject people will choose? And animals and humans are different; or else we'd all be on all 4s and barking, so what can you learn about a human from a cat or goat? Tests done on animals are unrealiable: the distress caused to the animal from experiments mess up the results, and tests done on monkeys have a 30% chance of having the same result on a human: YOU'D GET MORE CREDIBLE RESULTS FROM FLIPPING A COIN! Absoloutely disgusting.
Answer:
You didn't get these ideas from too many sources, did you? If that's your opinion, fine, but if it came from your head, you might want to get that thing examined.
Answer:
No species should suffer for the comfort of another. Animal testing is primitive and unnessecary, there are other ways, like growing human tissue, to find these cures. Tests done on animals are unrealiable: the distress caused to the animal from experiments mess up the results, and tests done on monkeys have a 30% chance of having the same result on a human. Yeah, that didn't sound scientific at all. Don't be so insulting just cause I disagree with you...personal attacks are the sign of a sore loser.
Answer:
Tell yourself what you like to justify yourself. Like I said, you can have your opinion.
Answer:
"Sore loser"? Since when are we competing? If you want an argument with me, I'll be perfectly happy to slap the dust off your brain in Shouts, but keep it off my posts, or you'll be reported.
Answer:
did you know that scientific tests have shown that if you beat a dog for 16 months around the head, its 17%, more likely to turn into a dugong in later life? You're right that didnt sound scientific at all...
Answer:
Haha.
Answer:
"Sore loser"? Since when are we competing? If you want an argument with me, I'll be perfectly happy to slap the dust off your brain in Shouts, but keep it off my posts, or you'll be reported. Sore losers are people who resort to insults in debates. Which you did. I don't know why you act so pugnacious towards me, since I didn't say anything offensive to you, just disagreed that animal testing is helpful. If you weren't willing to listen, you should've said that in the first place, kiddo. I'm out.
Answer:
"Kiddo". Right. No insults and all that jazz. You know, if I wanted to be an @ss, I would have been, trust me. If you're willing to operate under the delusions that someone's age dictates their intelligence, and your odd assessment of what dictates a 'sore loser', then maybe it makes sense to you to run from a discussion where you can't be productive instead of owning up to it and continuing like a mature human being.
Answer:
"Kiddo" isn't a deragatory term. Sorry you were offended.
Answer:
I'm out. Did I misunderstand this as well? I thought you were leaving?
Answer:
Hey, I'm gonna defend myself if needs be.
Answer:
As will I. Not that this is at all important, I just have nothing better to do at the moment, and this will pass the time. If you really want to keep harrassing me, I'd be happy to verbally slap the dust off your brain. Kindly move to my Shouts and off my post if you decide to continue pestering me.
Answer:
You're the one doing the harassing and pestering. I haven't been to this post till I got an email and saw you were being so agressive towards me. So I'm gonna be the bigger person and let this go. Have fun, kiddo.
Answer:
Whatever makes you feel like the bigger than you are. Don't forget that you came to my post and started arguing, not the other way around. I made this post as an outlet for my opinion, not so you could feel bigger than anyone else.