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.

 

World's first GM babies born

page: 4
28
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 12:18 AM
link   
This is not breaking news, it's a recycled story from pre 9/11 in fact...
archives.cnn.com...

Just FYI




posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by nightbringr
Topic already started here several days ago.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And here's a thread made a day before that one:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

That one has more information about this...



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 02:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


There are many diseases that could be controlled by not eating crap, and there are plenty of birth defects that can be avoided if you are not exposed to certain stimuli...

BUT NO WE HAVE TO TAKE A SHORT CUT!

Playing with genetics is horrible.. in manipulating a gene to fix cancer you have no clue what the consequences are for that. you fix one thing and wreck another and it just snowballs from there
edit on 30-6-2012 by votan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
Thirty babies have been born with at least two of them having genes from three different parents. This reminds me of that movie "Twins" with Arnold Schwarzenegger and Danny Devito.

Personally, I don't believe in this type of tinkering with human reproduction, in fact it makes me very uncomfortable for various reasons.

There is no turning back folks, it's all downhill from here. This can only lead to bad things. What if these "GM" babies have mutations and defects humans have never seen before then proceed to reproduce with non "GM" babies, it could cause a drastic ripple effect.

I have a feeling they have cloning and modifying humans for decades now but they're finally deciding to let us know about it.

www.dailymail.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 29-6-2012 by Corruption Exposed because: (no reason given)

Yeah I agree. Just because 'They' say they don't doesn't mean they don't.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 03:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
Thirty babies have been born with at least two of them having genes from three different parents. This reminds me of that movie "Twins" with Arnold Schwarzenegger and Danny Devito.

Personally, I don't believe in this type of tinkering with human reproduction, in fact it makes me very uncomfortable for various reasons.

There is no turning back folks, it's all downhill from here. This can only lead to bad things. What if these "GM" babies have mutations and defects humans have never seen before then proceed to reproduce with non "GM" babies, it could cause a drastic ripple effect.

I have a feeling they have cloning and modifying humans for decades now but they're finally deciding to let us know about it.

www.dailymail.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 29-6-2012 by Corruption Exposed because: (no reason given)





Babies with DNA from 3 parents is somewhat normal and has been happening for years. (At very least since the mid 90's.)

This was being developed for women with mitochondrial disease. They couldn't give birth because of defective mitochondrial DNA, so they replace the MDNA in the nucleus of the faulty egg.

I wouldn't call that GM in the same vein as GMO crops.... because it's not, at all, anything like that.


P.S.

Again, this story is a copy/paste from May 5th 2001's CNN writeup.

I.E. The actual article is over 10 years old.

In other news, the ancient star child skull found in Mexico has 3 parents. So we know this was done hundreds of years ago, now whether or not it was done by man or done by E.T. is an entirely different question all together, however -- it is a fact that the star child skull has 2 types of MDNA and 1 type of NDNA.

The skull was discovered in the 1930's.... It's over 900 years old... so... yeah.

Hope that shatters some dimensions.



Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by Aim64C
 




Where's the science behind your sarcasm?


Too lazy to do your own research?

If you're going to sit here and tell me that GMO crops are good I have no choice but to laugh in your face and offer you some sincere pity.

This guy I tell ya




You have lost all credibility anything you post from now on will be considered as satire.

Peace!



He um, didn't say GMO crops aren't bad for you, he said the incident with the cows that you cited was Hybridized Grass. That is a fact, it wasn't GMO at all -- this was already covered here on ATS as well. That doesn't equate to GMO being good for us, by any stretch of the imagination. He was just correcting your mistake.
edit on 30-6-2012 by Laokin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 06:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


Never

Mind
edit on 30-6-2012 by skepticconwatcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by nightbringr

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000

Originally posted by yourmaker
what if these are the first super humans? super intelligence etc, and when they mature, they realize they are now the apex predators, and with a quiet demeanour infiltrate our society and drain it of it's lifeforce until enough of us remain to control and rule without knowing a difference.



The last time some creatures screwed with the human genome we ended up with 450 ft. tall giants that ate people for food, called Nephilim and where the myths of the greek Titans came from. If we start seeing people with dog heads and crocodile heads like whats in the egyptian hieroglyphs...bad medicine.


Do you realize how big a 450 foot creature would be?

The world doesn't have food or oxygen to sustain something many times larger than the largest dinosaur that existed. Now, or in the past. Your bible is not meant to be read literally.


Thats part of the reason they were killed. Some things are not meant to be taken literally, some are, some metaphorical, some allegorical but not that. It doesn't come from the bible, that comes from the book of Giants. So fail



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by LadyJae
Isn't Genetic Modification just a politically correct term for eugenics?

J


I didn't think there was ever anything politically correct about genetic modification, or eugenics, or at least there shouldn't of been. They were practicing eugenics in america in the 20s or so I believe, sterilizing women who had given birth to "unwanteds"...



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Damn I was just watching the Matrix yesterday, where he swallows the red pill and wakes up around a millions of other people and babies, as the machines harvest the energy. Kinda reminds me of that. On topic, this is just pure nutt house, I wonder if there is already small scale GM babies that are just being harvested for the organs, an Unlimimted number of perfect organs, That is scary stuff. We'll never get rid of the Elite now, they'll be 200 year old raisin looking men and woman in congress, with 5 year old brains. LOL wait that what we have now



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 




I wonder...since these children were created in a lab...are they the propery of the company that created them?

Like patenting the human genome? Or creating a new strain of roses,cattle, drugs?

An entire generation of children owned by a corpration. Sounds like good sic-fi

Gone



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 



Too lazy to do your own research?


I already have.

www.csa.com...

The problem is that you're not half as informed as you think you are. For example - I actually understand the basics of biochemistry that comprise the cellular processes. I'm, by no means, an expert in the field - but I understand the principle reactions behind all organic life presently known.

Which is why the concept of Genetically Modified Organism Food (GMO food - your term, not mine. Would you like to visit an Automatic Teller Machine Machine? - ATM Machine?) being either overwhelmingly good or overwhelmingly bad for you is just nonsense. Nucleic DNA mutates at such rapid rates and in so many different ways that it is not inaccurate to say that it has been designed (intelligently, randomly, or intelligently randomly) to mutate as much as possible while preserving the species (in fact - the longer living an organism, the -more- mutations occur between each generation).

So, the dangers of GMOs are that of a calculated change versus the potential for random, unpredictable changes. It's like worrying whether switching to a different engine oil viscosity will cause performance problems in a vehicle that is statistically more likely to crash due to driver error than break down on the highway (for any reason).


If you're going to sit here and tell me that GMO crops are good I have no choice but to laugh in your face and offer you some sincere pity.


There's a bit of a problem in your logic.

You presume that I have to demonstrate GMOs to be 'good' in order to effectively challenge your assertion that they are bad. Prove to me that you keeping a pet in the house is good. Your lack of doing so does not validate the implication that having a pet in the house is bad. Having a pet in the house is a choice; it works well for some people, and it doesn't work well for others.

Applying this logic to what we know about GMOs as they pertain to crops, we can establish the following: Genetically Modified Crops provide advantages under certain growing conditions that are up to the individuals planting and maintaining the crops to assess against any observed, implied, or feared risks.

In India, where there are still locust swarms (long since beaten into submission in garden regions like Europe and North America); Genetically Modified Crops with inherent pest resistance improve yields considerably due to the fact that a large presence of pests exists and external pesticide treatments are infrequent and often not available.

In America, where we worry about how many years of retirement we may be getting "cheated" out of by our eating habits; the idea of consuming "poisoned" food that may 'cause' us to only see the average life expectancy of 82-85 - we evaluate the "risk" of eating pesticide enabled crops differently from developing regions where infant and child mortality due to malnourishment are leading causes of death.

Which is exactly why these same countries look at our "targets for global CO2 emissions" and say: "# you - we're using what is affordable and turns the lights on." We have such excess that we worry about dying of things like cancer. Much of the rest of the world is far more concerned with meeting demands we take for granted (clean drinking water... travel outside the U.S. - the list of countries where the locals drink the public water without treating it first is very small - even in developed regions like Korea (heavy metals in the water), Dubai (bacteria), and just about every other country on the planet.)

Of course - there's no research demonstrating a causal effect between any genetically modified crops and any specific health condition.

The line of case studies and personal testimonies is reminiscent of the fears over vaccines causing autism.

Now - if you want to conduct research to test your assumptions - go right ahead. The problem is that activists are rarely interested in the truth - only in validating their position. Which results in misleading studies and straw man arguments.

Simply spoken: You're in over your head.

I appreciate your willingness to discuss the issue - but you have a child's understanding of the concept and spend much of your time entertaining phantasms of your own ignorance.


You have lost all credibility anything you post from now on will be considered as satire.


And this pretty much explains your lack of intelligence. "Man... you're so dumb that you're dumb. I can't take anything you say seriously."

Of course - it should be expected. Research demonstrates that a lack of intelligence correlates very strongly with ignorance of intellectual incompetence.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 12:20 PM
link   
And now I say welcome to the demonic agenda of the Illuminati. This could be the first step towards transhumanism and turning us into mindless cyborg drones.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by votan
 



There are many diseases that could be controlled by not eating crap, and there are plenty of birth defects that can be avoided if you are not exposed to certain stimuli...


This is specious reasoning at best.

Problem: "I have cancer."

Solution: "Well, you must have come into contact with something that caused this to happen."

By that same logic, I must have come into contact with something that gave me hazel eyes; a freckle on my arm; or the hair on my head. Of course - that something is a combination of genetic code and the diffraction patterns in my iris (genetics only directly determine pigmentation of the iris - a lack of pigment being blue and pigmentation being brown).

While certain chemicals and behaviors show a correlation to increased risk of developing certain issues; the problems are not at all eliminated by some kind of perfect life of altruism and Nutrition Nazism.

Cystic Fibrosis, for example, is a genetic disease caused by defective proteins. For many people - the cause is purely genetic (though I can't entirely rule out the possibility of a retrovirus causing damage to that section of genetic code - though it's a very remote possibility).

Sickle Cell Anemia is caused by genetic mutations that, through natural selection, became prominent in Malaria infested regions. The mutation, when recessive, gives increased resistance to the parasitic infection. When expressed in a double-recessive manner, it leads to a deformation of the blood cell membrane that decreases oxygen carrying capacity.

It's not caused by chemicals.


BUT NO WE HAVE TO TAKE A SHORT CUT!


Statistically speaking; you are far more likely to die on a public roadway than you are walking on the sidewalk to work. Why do you insist on taking some kind of vehicular transportation to work?

Because the benefits of expedience far outweigh the risks.


Playing with genetics is horrible.. in manipulating a gene to fix cancer you have no clue what the consequences are for that. you fix one thing and wreck another and it just snowballs from there


Cancer won't inherently be fixed by genetic engineering.

Cancer is caused by rogue mutations in the body's cells. Normally, these mutations lead to defective cells that can't reproduce and die off (these are most often caused by erosion of necessary protein transcriptise following the depletion of the telomeres... also known as aging). In cancer, these cells reproduce very rapidly and consume vast amounts of resources ("cancerizing" is a specific mutation where the cell re-activates telomerasse - essentially turning that cell line into an independent organism more in line with single-celled organisms).

While certain individuals may have a higher disposition for cancer due to their specific genetic makeup (which may make it easier for cells to mutate into a cancerized state, or more likely to create fast-replicating mutations that could later cancerize) - genetic engineering would be unable to control what happens with regard to rogue mutations in a body.

Further - the process of genetic engineering, as it currently exists - would be to simply swap existing lines of genetic code. A person with genes for a G6PD deficiency can have that code substituted in their offspring for a demonstrably healthy segment. Asians with a high rate of lactose intolerance could be given the lactase genes seen in europeans (who have multiple copies of the genes expressed within the pancreatic tissues) - with some tweaking to allow proper digestion of dairy products well into adulthood (lactose tolerance is a genetic mutation that has occurred since the Neolithic era, as is the expression of the enzyme Amylase in saliva - and sees different proliferation rates among regional populations).

Life is far more robust than we often give it credit for - and interestingly fragile in ways we are often inconsiderate of.

Genetic modification is a tool - just like anything else.

If you do not allow the tool to be utilized for good - then the only people who will use it are those who will use it for nefarious power-seeking purposes.

I say let the development begin and to guide it in a beneficial direction as opposed to leaving it as a taboo to be exploited solely by those who pursue their own agendas at the detriment of others.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   
Who says it's the "First"?

Gattaca, anyone?



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mrgone
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 




I wonder...since these children were created in a lab...are they the propery of the company that created them?

Like patenting the human genome? Or creating a new strain of roses,cattle, drugs?

An entire generation of children owned by a corpration. Sounds like good sic-fi

Gone



Actually we are all property, the difference is that these "children" are actually going to be more aware of it, then others less informed.

Just look at your birth certificate, and social security card.

Peace, NRE.



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 02:01 PM
link   
Well the Nazis did Eugenics on concentration camp victims. Josef Mengele was notoriously brutal.

What right has anyone got to dictacte what disabilities are fine and others are not. If this is carried out into the future, I would not be here. I would be flushed down the loo via the test tube. And yet here I am perfectly able to cope in mainstream society.

I dont think the Supreme Being/Divine Creator would be pleased.



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Wirral Bagpuss
 



Well the Nazis did Eugenics on concentration camp victims. Josef Mengele was notoriously brutal.


There's a considerable difference between eugenics and genetic engineering/modification.

Eugenics is a form of selected breeding (typically to apply to humans).

Human beings, regardless of what we would like to believe, are products of eugenics. Our intelligence is due to the choice of early women choosing interesting/creative mates. Our brain size and intelligence is really not that great of a survival advantage. Sure - our technology enabled by intelligence is, today... but back when we were still slamming rocks together and still had similar brain size ratios (and similar caloric requirements) - it was a serious drain on our systems. We even began to develop 'premature' birth because the female pelvis could not separate any further to allow passage of a child's cranium (were they developed to the degree of our closest relatives at birth).

It was a sort of 'bootstrap' effect where the selection created a runaway process of evolution. Similar to a peacock's feathers.

To deny this is to deny reality because it conflicts with your ideals.


What right has anyone got to dictacte what disabilities are fine and others are not.


This is a fine line.

Generally speaking, if you could choose between a fairly guaranteed, short life with cystic fibrosis or being genetically modified as a fetus to be free of the error causing cystic fibrosis.... I am fairly certain a reasonable person would choose to have the treatment done.

Now - it's a different story if you want to try and call different forms of Autism a 'disorder.' Asperger's, for example, can be somewhat debilitating but it also gives those affected by it very powerful forms of intelligence and thought. It's a 'disorder' that can be effectively managed post-natal and leads to merely atypical function as opposed to complete dysfunction.


If this is carried out into the future, I would not be here.


That's not what genetic modification is about.

That said - it really depends upon what your condition is. I am not going to coddle you - I would not, in the slightest, be opposed to my partner choosing to abort a child that was going to have down's syndrome or come out with completely disabled systems. Stories of individuals struggling just to be considered average may be endearing... but you're living vicariously in either case. You choose to abort - you're saying you want a more adept child. You choose to carry - and you are saying you want to have a child that adapts and overcomes. In either case - your expectations are placed upon the child because he/she is your legacy.


I would be flushed down the loo via the test tube.


Not likely. But again - I don't really know your situation.


And yet here I am perfectly able to cope in mainstream society.


I'll break it down:

Is your condition one caused or heavily influenced by genetics?

Is it a condition that is purely debilitating?

If not - does its altering of function result in gains in other areas of life?

If you have a condition that is purely debilitating and is heavily influenced by genetics - then there's no reason why you shouldn't be genetically modified to remove the debilitating gene.

If it's a condition that alters your function but results in a "difference" as opposed to a "problem" - then there's really no reason to pursue genetic modification in your case.

There's a difference between variation and debilitation. Variation is good. Kind of why sex exists.



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 12:08 PM
link   
The problem is this.

The corporations will finally "own" you! What if their top exec needs a new heart? Boom, head shot. Thanks, Bob.



I assume most of us will be too old/dead to mate with GM people and have offspring owned by some corpoation.
edit on 3-7-2012 by christoph because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   
I am curious to know how their genetically modified pineal gland are functioning.
Scientists have done such a great job with gmo seeds, Can u imagines GM human being? The perfect slave incapable of attaining self realization.
edit on 3-7-2012 by Visitor2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


Are you purposely reading what I posted incorrectly?

First off, I meant GMO crops themselves, not the product of them. Don't get me wrong because I do know that genetically modified foods are bad for you, it's just the fact that these plants are now mixing with wild plants beyond our controls is worrisome.

Here is a thread I did a long time ago about genetically modified plants spreading in the wild, even though 'it wasn't supposed to happen".

'Feral' plants found growing along roads from North Dakota to Manitoba

The main article in the OP is no longer up, but I guarantee you it once existed. You will probably doubt me so I will provide you some other sources that verify the information in the thread.


Critics of GM crops vindicated over time

Just over a decade has passed since the use of genetically modified crops on Prairie farms became widespread.

Although farmers have wholeheartedly embraced them, some of the downsides predicted by early critics -- which were pooh-poohed by the experts -- have also turned out to be true.

It turns out, cross-contamination does occur between genetically modified (GM) and non-GM crops, such as the spread of volunteer herbicide-resistant canola genes into other farmers' fields.

It can also take place in the lab -- as illustrated by the seepage of GM-variety CDC Triffid flax into the Prairie flax seed supply.


Now you can twist my words and derail off topic all you want, but the fact is we don't know enough about the practice of mixing human or plant DNA to say it's a "good" thing when so far most the evidence says otherwise.

I don't appreciate having my words represented incorrectly so I'm just going to assume that you're comprehension skills must have been a bit slow the day you made these posts, hey it happens to best of us.

My gut feeling tells me you're going to return with another "half a page post" full of deflections instead of actually discussing the matter at hand.
edit on 3-7-2012 by Corruption Exposed because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join