Gay gene

[Salandriagado]

You know what happens when you standardise DNA? You die. Every damn time. Lack of variety implies extinction.

I don't think you catch the flu just because of your dna as much as how much your body has developed an immune system to it. I'm talking about an artificial dna that is free from genetic diseases and other deformities, and could be constantly monitored to prevent extinction. Why? Because parents wouldn't reproduce sexually, they wouldn't reproduce at all. The state would be responsible for decanting individuals.

No, you just die every single time your environment changes a bit, you lose the ability to evolve, lose fertility, have more genetic (particularly autosomal recessive) disorders, get higher infant mortality, slower growth rates, smaller adult sizes, lose your immune system (and therefore when you catch the flu, you die) and have increased morbidity and mortality.

[Hallistar]

I'm not talking about inbreeding, or sexually reproducing for that matter. And I'm assuming with sufficient technology, those could be altered.

Yeahno. Once diversity is gone, it's gone. Once you've gotten everyone onto a 'standard' genome (Whatever the hell that is), you can't get the diversity back. Even if you were to switch to IVF between partners (As if natural sexual intercourse would halt), you would still be dealing with the genetic equivalent of incest between identical twins every time you create a baby. Hence why homozygosity in a population is bad.

They could keep the natural intercourse, they'd just be sterilized. If the state is responsible for creating and decanting babies, they could artificially manipulate the dna when necessary if diseases are spotted or if some kind of biological weapon targeting those of a specific dna were to strike.

[Spetznaz Assault Teams]

I don't think you catch the flu just because of your dna as much as how much your body has developed an immune system to it. I'm talking about an artificial dna that is free from genetic diseases and other deformities, and could be constantly monitored to prevent extinction. Why? Because parents wouldn't reproduce sexually, they wouldn't reproduce at all. The state would be responsible for decanting individuals.

No, you just die every single time your environment changes a bit, you lose the ability to evolve, lose fertility, have more genetic (particularly autosomal recessive) disorders, get higher infant mortality, slower growth rates, smaller adult sizes, lose your immune system (and therefore when you catch the flu, you die) and have increased morbidity and mortality.

Yeahno. Once diversity is gone, it's gone. Once you've gotten everyone onto a 'standard' genome (Whatever the hell that is), you can't get the diversity back. Even if you were to switch to IVF between partners (As if natural sexual intercourse would halt), you would still be dealing with the genetic equivalent of incest between identical twins every time you create a baby. Hence why homozygosity in a population is bad.

Mmmm not quite. I submit to you, the single celled a-sexual reproductive system. It has been around since before dinosaurs, and will continue until long after we are gone. What basically happens is a single cell who loves itscellf very much (did you get the pun?) waits until the conditions are at the best time, and splits. It's a complicated and rather boring process, so I won't hammer you with the details. Suffice to say, the result is two identical copies of the parent cell, that is, the DNA is exactly the same.

I believe this applies to your post as well

[Hallistar]

I don't think you catch the flu just because of your dna as much as how much your body has developed an immune system to it. I'm talking about an artificial dna that is free from genetic diseases and other deformities, and could be constantly monitored to prevent extinction. Why? Because parents wouldn't reproduce sexually, they wouldn't reproduce at all. The state would be responsible for decanting individuals.

No, you just die every single time your environment changes a bit, you lose the ability to evolve, lose fertility, have more genetic (particularly autosomal recessive) disorders, get higher infant mortality, slower growth rates, smaller adult sizes, lose your immune system (and therefore when you catch the flu, you die) and have increased morbidity and mortality.

Why would you die every single time your environment changes? The state could manipulate the genes of the newborns if agreed upon to evolve them, disorders could be genetically programmed out, and an immune system log in the form of dna could be programmed in.

[Salandriagado]

You know what happens when you standardise DNA? You die. Every damn time. Lack of variety implies extinction.

Mmmm not quite. I submit to you, the single celled a-sexual reproductive system. It has been around since before dinosaurs, and will continue until long after we are gone. What basically happens is a single cell who loves itscellf very much (did you get the pun?) waits until the conditions are at the best time, and splits. It's a complicated and rather boring process, so I won't hammer you with the details. Suffice to say, the result is two identical copies of the parent cell, that is, the DNA is exactly the same.

Asexually reproducing mono-cellular life relies heavily on viral genetic transfer to maintain genetic diversity. Don't try to be patronising with basic high school biology, you'll get someone who actually knows what they're talking about.

No, you just die every single time your environment changes a bit, you lose the ability to evolve, lose fertility, have more genetic (particularly autosomal recessive) disorders, get higher infant mortality, slower growth rates, smaller adult sizes, lose your immune system (and therefore when you catch the flu, you die) and have increased morbidity and mortality.

Why would you die every single time your environment changes? The state could manipulate the genes of the newborns if agreed upon to evolve them, disorders could be genetically programmed out, and an immune system log in the form of dna could be programmed in.

Because in order to adapt to environmental changes, natural selection is required. No genetic diversity => no natural selection => species death. Genetic manipulation is not a substitute for natural selection, and a continual recycling of a very limited set of genes destroys your immune system. Genetics is not a fucking computer, you can't just "program in" what you want in the way you're thinking of.

[Avenio]

Mmmm not quite. I submit to you, the single celled a-sexual reproductive system. It has been around since before dinosaurs, and will continue until long after we are gone. What basically happens is a single cell who loves itscellf very much (did you get the pun?) waits until the conditions are at the best time, and splits. It's a complicated and rather boring process, so I won't hammer you with the details. Suffice to say, the result is two identical copies of the parent cell, that is, the DNA is exactly the same.

We're talking about multicellular organisms, dearie. Microbes have an altogether different MO that doesn't apply to us. As in, they undergo mass die-offs in order to evolve, because their mode of reproduction leaves the only means of generating novel traits to be mutation and horizontal gene transfer. Sexual reproduction is lightyears ahead of asexual reproduction.

They could keep the natural intercourse, they'd just be sterilized. If the state is responsible for creating and decanting babies, they could artificially manipulate the dna when necessary if diseases are spotted or if some kind of biological weapon targeting those of a specific dna were to strike.

Still doesn't deal with the fact that in a generation they'd be dealing with a whole population filled with Charles II of Spains. Inbreeding is inbreeding is inbreeding. It would be a constant, uphill battle to keep genetic diseases and inbreeding depression at a manageable level with a population that homozygous.

[Rick Rollin]

You know what happens when you standardise DNA? You die. Every damn time. Lack of variety implies extinction.

I don't think you catch the flu just because of your dna as much as how much your body has developed an immune system to it. I'm talking about an artificial dna that is free from genetic diseases and other deformities, and could be constantly monitored to prevent extinction. Why? Because parents wouldn't reproduce sexually, they wouldn't reproduce at all. The state would be responsible for decanting individuals.

Go get a copy of Brave New World. Also, I call alpha.

[Hallistar]

They could keep the natural intercourse, they'd just be sterilized. If the state is responsible for creating and decanting babies, they could artificially manipulate the dna when necessary if diseases are spotted or if some kind of biological weapon targeting those of a specific dna were to strike.

Still doesn't deal with the fact that in a generation they'd be dealing with a whole population filled with Charles II of Spains. Inbreeding is inbreeding is inbreeding. It would be a constant, uphill battle to keep genetic diseases and inbreeding depression at a manageable level with a population that homozygous.

I suppose, yes, thus necessitating large quantities of genetic engineers and scientists responsible for managing the next generation of people, but I don't think it would be impossible

[Hallistar]

I don't think you catch the flu just because of your dna as much as how much your body has developed an immune system to it. I'm talking about an artificial dna that is free from genetic diseases and other deformities, and could be constantly monitored to prevent extinction. Why? Because parents wouldn't reproduce sexually, they wouldn't reproduce at all. The state would be responsible for decanting individuals.

Go get a copy of Brave New World. Also, I call alpha.

I read it..where do you think I got some of these ideas from?

I call Alpha Plus.

[Dahlas]

my beliefs cannot tolerate gays homosexuals or biosexuals. if it says in the bible that anyone sexual immoral is an enemy of God than thats what it means. it's not a hate crime, it's a good moral, gays are abomidable to God, i don't hate them i just follow God and what he says to me.

[Hallistar]

Why would you die every single time your environment changes? The state could manipulate the genes of the newborns if agreed upon to evolve them, disorders could be genetically programmed out, and an immune system log in the form of dna could be programmed in.

Because in order to adapt to environmental changes, natural selection is required. No genetic diversity => no natural selection => species death. Genetic manipulation is not a substitute for natural selection, and a continual recycling of a very limited set of genes destroys your immune system. Genetics is not a fucking computer, you can't just "program in" what you want in the way you're thinking of.

Then they'll create new genes..you just gotta trust in future tech and think of the possibilities

[Hallistar]

my beliefs cannot tolerate gays homosexuals or biosexuals. if it says in the bible that anyone sexual immoral is an enemy of God than thats what it means. it's not a hate crime, it's a good moral, gays are abomidable to God, i don't hate them i just follow God and what he says to me.

Cause you know that what you read in a 2000 year old book has to be true cause it feels right? When has god said anything to you?

[Ovisterra]

my beliefs cannot tolerate gays homosexuals or biosexuals. if it says in the bible that anyone sexual immoral is an enemy of God than thats what it means. it's not a hate crime, it's a good moral, gays are abomidable to God, i don't hate them i just follow God and what he says to me.

God never said that to you. The bible (written by humans who thought (rightly or wrongly) that they knew what god wanted) did(n't). Anyways, if you're going to hold a set of beliefs that contradict each other numerous times, I'm not going to stop you.

[Salandriagado]

my beliefs cannot tolerate gays homosexuals or biosexuals. if it says in the bible that anyone sexual immoral is an enemy of God than thats what it means. it's not a hate crime, it's a good moral, gays are abomidable to God, i don't hate them i just follow God and what he says to me.

It's a bloody good job that it doesn't then, isn't it? (Or rather, it doesn't say that homosexuality is immoral at all).

[Yahkima]

my beliefs cannot tolerate gays homosexuals or biosexuals. if it says in the bible that anyone sexual immoral is an enemy of God than thats what it means. it's not a hate crime, it's a good moral, gays are abomidable to God, i don't hate them i just follow God and what he says to me.

This post manages the remarkable achievement of being both abhorrent, and simultaneously irrelevant to the topic at hand.

[Ovisterra]

my beliefs cannot tolerate gays homosexuals or biosexuals. if it says in the bible that anyone sexual immoral is an enemy of God than thats what it means. it's not a hate crime, it's a good moral, gays are abomidable to God, i don't hate them i just follow God and what he says to me.

It's a bloody good job that it doesn't then, isn't it? (Or rather, it doesn't say that homosexuality is immoral at all).

Down with the biosexuals!

[Hallistar]

I don't think you catch the flu just because of your dna as much as how much your body has developed an immune system to it. I'm talking about an artificial dna that is free from genetic diseases and other deformities, and could be constantly monitored to prevent extinction. Why? Because parents wouldn't reproduce sexually, they wouldn't reproduce at all. The state would be responsible for decanting individuals.

Go get a copy of Brave New World. Also, I call alpha.

I guess Brave New world did work, but only through the different classes of people regarding development, and the different races they used..plus I heard that the sterilized females that the guys would get it on with had facial hair..which sorta creeps the hell outta me

[Odins Scandinavia]

If scientists successfully isolated a 'gay gene' and could easily destroy it for no cost at all in every person, would you support this action or would you classify it a homophobic?

I myself have no problem with Homosexuality, and so long as they keep it to themselves I think they should be allowed do what they like, however what I do hate is the thought of thousands of homosexual children growing up and going through school having to feel as if they are not 'normal', getting stick from other children and being faced with prejudice their whole lives.

No matter what way you look at it, Homosexuality causes problems for the homosexual individual, through no fault of their own, but through fault of the prejudiced.

Going back to the question, it would not be a genocide of gays or anything ludicrous like that, it would not even be taking homosexuality away from people, it would simply be making sure that nobody ever has to be subject to prejudice for their sexuality again.

I know this is a touchy subject but please don't think I am homophobic, this just occurred to me earlier on the bus...

I'm really not convinced we should start gene-control programs to remove any traits that might make someone feel they are not 'normal'.

such as down syndrome, dyslexia, liberalism and Autism?

anyway, in response to OP, homophobia has to be the dumbest term known to man; just because someone dislikes queers does not make them afraid of them. its just like how feminists do, the "men are intimidated by me" bullshit.

[Salandriagado]

I'm really not convinced we should start gene-control programs to remove any traits that might make someone feel they are not 'normal'.

such as down syndrome, dyslexia, liberalism and Autism?

anyway, in response to OP, homophobia has to be the dumbest term known to man; just because someone dislikes queers does not make them afraid of them. its just like how feminists do, the "men are intimidated by me" bullshit.

Not to mention intelligence, talent and skill.

[Spetznaz Assault Teams]

Mmmm not quite. I submit to you, the single celled a-sexual reproductive system. It has been around since before dinosaurs, and will continue until long after we are gone. What basically happens is a single cell who loves itscellf very much (did you get the pun?) waits until the conditions are at the best time, and splits. It's a complicated and rather boring process, so I won't hammer you with the details. Suffice to say, the result is two identical copies of the parent cell, that is, the DNA is exactly the same.

Asexually reproducing mono-cellular life relies heavily on viral genetic transfer to maintain genetic diversity. Don't try to be patronising with basic high school biology, you'll get someone who actually knows what they're talking about.
.

If I came off as patronizing I do apologize (I thought the pun was rather good myself). However the fact remains that your statement was that if DNA was standardized then the species would die. My point was that your statement was incorrect.

[Salandriagado]

Asexually reproducing mono-cellular life relies heavily on viral genetic transfer to maintain genetic diversity. Don't try to be patronising with basic high school biology, you'll get someone who actually knows what they're talking about.
.

If I came off as patronizing I do apologize (I thought the pun was rather good myself). However the fact remains that your statement was that if DNA was standardized then the species would die. My point was that your statement was incorrect.

It was the implication that I wouldn't understand that came across as patronising. Your statement makes it clear that you have no idea what you're talking about. Bacteria and the like are not genetically homogeneous by any measure. Source

[Spetznaz Assault Teams]

If I came off as patronizing I do apologize (I thought the pun was rather good myself). However the fact remains that your statement was that if DNA was standardized then the species would die. My point was that your statement was incorrect.

It was the implication that I wouldn't understand that came across as patronising. Your statement makes it clear that you have no idea what you're talking about. Bacteria and the like are not genetically homogeneous by any measure. Source

Now that was a bit offending. You see, I didn't say bacteria. I said single celled organisms which rely on the a-sexual reproduction system. They are homogeneous.

[Salandriagado]

It was the implication that I wouldn't understand that came across as patronising. Your statement makes it clear that you have no idea what you're talking about. Bacteria and the like are not genetically homogeneous by any measure. Source

Now that was a bit offending. You see, I didn't say bacteria. I said single celled organisms which rely on the a-sexual reproduction system. They are homogeneous.

How, pray, do you think bacteria and archaea reproduce?

[Chinese Regions]

fukn fags

trololo

[Rick Rollin]

Go get a copy of Brave New World. Also, I call alpha.

I read it..where do you think I got some of these ideas from?

I call Alpha Plus.

I call World Controller. Soma!

Go get a copy of Brave New World. Also, I call alpha.

I guess Brave New world did work, but only through the different classes of people regarding development, and the different races they used..plus I heard that the sterilized females that the guys would get it on with had facial hair..which sorta creeps the hell outta me

I was criticizing Hallistar.

Because in order to adapt to environmental changes, natural selection is required. No genetic diversity => no natural selection => species death. Genetic manipulation is not a substitute for natural selection, and a continual recycling of a very limited set of genes destroys your immune system. Genetics is not a fucking computer, you can't just "program in" what you want in the way you're thinking of.

Then they'll create new genes..you just gotta trust in future tech and think of the possibilities

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/respectscience.php