Its in the genes. , page 1

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times

Topic started on 25-5-2012 @ 01:08 PM by ringlejames

We as humans, masters of the universe, know through science that we share a lot of the same dna as plants and animals.

My first question is what genes allow tuataras to live 200+years, or what allows some trees to be 80,000 years old.

Its in the genes. If we share the same some of the same dna and genes as plants and animals, is their a possibity that the "Age" genes and those related to age and fighting off disease cell growth or what not, and replace our weaker life defying genes with those.

I was once told that science goes as far as imagination. Nothing is impossible and nothing is out of the question, we just have to find the way.

I seriously believe that such a thing is possible. In 1000 years we could be half human half brocli.

just joking on that one, a little. But we could have the cell growth and age genes of the tuataras in probably 100 to 300 years.

But what I really think about is changing the pigment genes growth and size genes and we could be little smurfs in 500 years. Can you picture it an army of smurfs so small that they are too shoot until it is too late. Ha ahaha

Ha ha.

Or how about increasing our growth genes and we could build an army of 20 foot tall giants capable of doing the work of 30 men.

I hope this does not get laughed at.

Maybe its like me and my blackjack. Maybe I just have superior way of looking at things.

edit on 25-5-2012 by ringlejames because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 25-5-2012 @ 01:15 PM by TheQuantumAnomaly

reply to post by ringlejames

Not a lot of time to respond, but unfortunately not quite so simple. If you'd like a good place to start, i'd say google telemerase. It has to do with longevity and things like huntingtons disease. There's more to longevity than a few genes

reply posted on 25-5-2012 @ 01:30 PM by IEtherianSoul9

reply to post by ringlejames

Lengthening the span of our lives won't necessarily make us young forever. We'll still grow old and be old for a longer period of time.

The major themes emerging from our present understanding of the genes that control ageing are: that ageing is not programmed but results from the gradual accumulation of random somatic damage; and that the rate of ageing, and hence longevity, is set by the efficacy of maintenance and repair processes. A growing body of data supports these themes but a great deal more work still needs to be done to identify the actual genes which are involved, how they are regulated, and how they interact with each other.

"Masters of the Universe"...more like "Peasants of the Universe".

Source

reply posted on 26-5-2012 @ 07:05 AM by TrueBrit

reply to post by ringlejames

The question of human aging and possible retardations of that process has already been well and truely answered if you ask me. Telomeres are the key thing in our genetic make up, that determine how we age. They are found at the tips of chromosones, and serve many purposes, including keeping the strands of our DNA intact, preventing them sticking to one another or coming apart at random, which manifests as mutations that can cause cancer.

Over time, and many divisions, the length of these segments of the chromosome become shorter. They are the genetic marker of our aging, like a candle which burns slowly to a stub. When the wick is consumed, there is no more flame. There are parts of the body whose chromosomes have telomeres which do NOT shorten with age, such as the heart, in cells which do not need to divide to perform thier purpose.

The enzyme telomerase can add bases to the ends of telomeres, and further research down that line may result in increased lifespans, or improved old age.

However, there is a moral and ethical dilema that will doubtless occur to anyone with even the loosest grasp of current affairs on this planet. Wether real or imagined, or indeed, invented, there is a belief amongst the power elite on this planet, that there is a population problem. I tend to believe there is a border problem, but in any event, that is the wider perception. If human beings are going to be living longer, then that presents an issue. The longer people live, the less room there will be for new young, and the less resources to boot.

Of course, the resources and funding absorbed by an aging population would be less, assuming that the alteration of genetics was such as would prevent things like non fatal strokes, dementia, and physical frailty in general, because obviously, less expensive medical treatment and care provision would be required in order to deal with the aged. However, if the research into telomerase were to offer the option of functional immortality (i.e. multi-century or longer lifespans) then you can bet your bottom dollar that things would take a very nasty turn.

Imagine how easy it would be for the fruits of such research to be denied to the poor, and only given to the rich or powerful? Imagine what would happen when mankinds mortal flesh is transformed into an undying bastion, only passing on when destroyed by accident or by malice? There would be chaos and horror the likes of which you and I can barely comprehend! There would be resource wars, as the immortals scrabble to retain enough food and land to sustain thier never ending lives, and the rest of us would have no choice but to kill them all or starve as a result of thier hubris and contempt for those not included in the program! It would be a bloody nightmare!

Wether we CAN extend lifespans or not is a moot point. We can barely come up with solutions to the political and populational problems that face this planet as it is! While I would never advocate one child laws, sterilisation, or indeed termination of vast swathes of human life, nor can I say that I believe that the one thing we really need is the ability to make our lives un naturally longer than our current genetic profile allows for. We simply cannot be trusted with centuries as our playground. There is more than enough evidence to show that as we are, we are capable of ballsing things up more than thoroughly enough with the meagre eighty or a hundred years we live at maximum these days. To give a species that spends so much of its time making an utter and complete twit of itself the capacity to do so for centuries at a time will lead to very bad things in my humble opinion.

Until we have learned to respect our neighbors, to love one another implicitly, to operate as one brotherhood of mankind, rather than as disperate units of violent xenophobes, there can be no use for a lifespan measured in the hundreds of years, because the only result of such a thing comming at this time in our species intellectual evolution, will be eternities of pain, suffering, greed and a complete removal of all our most basic virtues. As we stand now, there are flashes of beauty in mankind, amongst the harrowing, many of which come from the brevity of our time on Earth. I think we should value the limitation placed upon us by our genes in this respect.

reply posted on 26-5-2012 @ 08:06 AM by ringlejames

reply to post by TrueBrit

Seconded, with respect.

I dont know what else could be added to the post very very well worded.

Sativa or indica? Or are you just that damned smart all by your self. lol

reply posted on 26-5-2012 @ 08:46 AM by TrueBrit

reply to post by ringlejames

I have read various articles about telomeres, both on ATS, the wider web, and in the BBC Focus magazine, which is a science and technology publication, to which I have a subscription. My recall however is not perfect, so I had to remind myself of the specifics of thier function with a quick search before posting.

The explanation of telomeres that I included in my post is compiled from various sources, but the comments on the sociological effect of thier use as an anti aging product or process are a result of my own analysis of the political and ethical state of the world and its occupants as they stand today.

Also, I am not that smart. If I was truely smart, I would have gotten further than a high school education, and probably be driving a tesla roadster by now

edit on 26-5-2012 by TrueBrit because: Grammar failiure of epic proportions. Sorry folks!

reply posted on 26-5-2012 @ 11:01 AM by ringlejames

Originally posted by TrueBrit
reply to post by ringlejames

Also, I am not that smart. If I was truely smart, I would have gotten further than a high school education, and probably be driving a tesla roadster by now
edit on 26-5-2012 by TrueBrit because: Grammar failiure of epic proportions. Sorry folks!

Dont underestimate your ability.

I under estimated my ability years after my 6.25 credits after 3.25 years of high school.

I got into blackjack and the math involved was beyond college level and learned that my 78 iq in the 9th grade had jumped up to 135.

I guess my love for blackjack increased my non existent study skills. I may have random bouts of goofiness, however some would attribute that to my genius.

I have since taken my newly found study skills and habits and applied them to the GED. I passed with scores in the less than 1 percentile, allowing me to skip a 2 year community college and go straight to a 4 year college. I start in the spring at one of three university's. I thought the same thing until I realized just how smart I was when I proved a college professor wrong when he tried to bash my blackjack system.

reply posted on 26-5-2012 @ 11:40 AM by TrueBrit

reply to post by ringlejames

Way to go ! The only outlet I have for the interests I have intellectually speaking, is right here at ATS. I just enjoy having somewhere to share my understanding. If you asked me to use it to make money, or get some place, I would probably get bored with it and go and get drunk anyway

Which brings me right back to the whole "No really, under a century is a good life for one of us" argument!

Pages: ^^TOP^^