It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

MPs say yes to three-person babies

page: 3
6
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 09:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: idmonster
I get the impression that a lot of people commenting, don't actually understanding what process is being performed.


Welcome to ATS, where reams of idiots will go off half-cocked about a topic they know little to nothing about!

I think it's a good idea and, like you, I took the time to understand the science instead of worrying about God or Super-Babies.

And, for the record, if they could engineer super-humans, I'd be up for that as well. Humans are poorly designed, have limited redundancy in vital systems, can barely regenerate wounds and are not fit for purpose. Give me an Astartes any day of the week.
edit on 4/2/15 by stumason because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: idmonster

The BIG issue with that analogy which is that one of the most important parts of your DNA that you pass down to your children is your mitochondrial DNA. It's what's used now to trace female lineage.

So the question I would have is whether or not the third party's DNA is a permanent change(meaning the grown embryo/individual would pass down the third party's DNA to their children) or if it's just a one time replacement.

If it's a one time replacement then the other issue is that there is now a person who still has the underlying genetic defects that caused issues in the first place.

If the donor female's mitochondrial DNA passes on to subsequent generations then it would be a huge deal in terms of lineage.

So yeah, do you know whether it does or not? I don't know enough about it and couldn't find anything.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: OrphanApology

I think it is 10% of the third party's dna.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: boymonkey74

How would it be 10% if you're replacing the mitochondria? Wouldn't it be 100% of the mitochondrial DNA?



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: stumason

But we could also make.

KHAN!!!






posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: OrphanApology

Sorry I was wrong.

from the link in my op.

The technique uses a modified version of IVF to combine the DNA of the two parents with the healthy mitochondria of a donor woman.

It results in babies with 0.1% of their DNA from the second woman and is a permanent change that would be passed down through the generations.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: boymonkey74

Yeah but what percentage change to the mitochondrial DNA?

If 100% of the mitochondrial DNA then that is a HUGE deal. If the Mitochondria is being replaced then wouldn't it be 100% of that DNA?

That is the most important bloodline if you're a female in my opinion. Keep the last name but I'm getting the Mitochondrial DNA sort of deal.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 12:14 PM
link   
So, what do you think they will call their version of Captain America?
ol' Adolf would have moistened his trousers over this technology.
I'm pretty curious what a 2 father 1 mother or vice versa baby would look like though
edit on 2/5/2015 by EyesOpenMouthShut because: oops



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: OrphanApology

Its a permanent change to the mitochondria in my example.

In reality, they are are only changing a small part of the dna of the mitochondria, not doing a full exchange.

To stick with the battery analogy, there actually repairing a faulty battery, not switching it out. But i think the description still hold. Whether you change the whole battery, or just top up the electrolytes, nothing you do to the battery will alter the make up of the equipment it powers.

Mitochondrial DNA is pretty useless for tracing ancestor as it doesn't take aspects from the male and female genetics. Because they reproduce more like bacteria. This makes it very useful for demonstrating a common ancestor tho'. My mitochondrial DNA (or more accurately, my mothers) , is pretty much identical to everyone else's on the planet, where as my nucleic DNA is pretty much unique, with enough similarities between me and my ancestors to prove lineage.

edit on 5-2-2015 by idmonster because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: idmonster

I see.

I guess that makes sense.

Somehow I was thinking that MtDNA had more variations.

I guess on the grand scheme of things it does but not so much on the most recent generations.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join