It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 12:06 PM
reply to post by Corruption Exposed

Are you purposely reading what I posted incorrectly?

It's difficult to tell what you are attempting to say; you're so often detached from reality.

First off, I meant GMO crops themselves, not the product of them.

It's the debate enigma, similar to quantum mechanics. Make a statement akin to a superposition that collapses upon rebutle into a state opposite of the rebuked.

Don't get me wrong because I do know that genetically modified foods are bad for you

This is simply not in conjunction with reality.

No scientific studies weathering peer review indicate such. The arguments of "we don't know that genetic modification is safe" equally applies to all 'natural' and hybrid crops that have not passed decades of extensive chemical breakdown and long term exposure tests.

In other words - you presume that, because we've eaten broccoli for thousands of years - it's a good idea to eat it. But who is to say eating broccoli... just once... causes you to die by the age of 90. While a silly proposition, to be sure - it has never been tested to see if it is true (just as it has never been proven that there is absolutely no danger to genetically engineered crops... or normal ones for that matter) - so it is a logical equivalent to anti-GM sentiments.

Much like it's a "good idea" to drink tea - spare for the fact that it contains very high amounts of aluminum fluoride and an lead to skeletal fluorosis when drank in large quantities for an extended period of time (a few liters per day for a decade or more).

it's just the fact that these plants are now mixing with wild plants beyond our controls is worrisome.

The problem I have with all of these studies... is the lack of any meaningful data.

How many studies exist prior to GM crops of the DNA of various populations of wild flora?

These studies essentially say: "These crops have genes that make them resistant to herbicides - therefor, they must have come from genetically modified plants."

The problem is that the process of creating resistant lines isn't exactly "mad science." They took the genes from existing species that were resistant and simply tweaked them.

All Roundup Ready crops contain an enzyme known as EPSPS (5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase) that is resistant to the effects of glyphosate. EPSPS is naturally found in all plants, fungi, and bacteria but is absent in animals (18).

Of course, it does go on to elaborate upon others:

Presently, only canola plants have been successfully engineered to contain a functional GOX enzyme (1). However, all the commercial RR crops contain a tolerant EPSPS gene. For soybean, cotton, and canola the glyphosate-resistant EPSPS was obtained from a soil bacterium in the genus Agrobacterium (strain CP4) (1, 15, 18). For corn, the source of EPSPS was its own cloned gene that had been mutagenized in vitro (i.e., in cell culture) (20). This technique involves changing the DNA bases of cultured plant cells by adding mutagenic chemical reagents. Resulting changes in DNA bases could slightly affect the amino acid composition of the host (i.e., corn) enzyme. Normally, mutagenesis will produce nonfunctional enzymes, but in some cases a few changes in amino acid sequence can still produce a functional enzyme. With the mutagenized corn line, the resulting EPSPS was 99.3% similar to the nonmutagenized EPSPS and still functional (i.e., it produced the aromatic amino acids), but it was resistant to the effects of glyphosate (20). The development of RR corn using a mutant version of its own EPSPS gene followed research nearly a decade earlier where petunia EPSPS was successfully altered and then reintroduced into the plant to effect tolerance to glyphosate (1,13).

Exactly what genes were found is highly relevant to the issue, here.

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.

The evidence is rather neutral. Genetic engineering can accomplish what its stated objectives are. An organism can be made to produce proteins, enzymes, and other biological components.

That is exactly what it is, nothing more, nothing less; nothing better, nothing worse.

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.

The problem is that we have a different opinion as to what that matter is. I see the matter as a bio-engineering discussion. You see the matter as a discussion of the problems and dangers of genetic modification. Which is why you can't wrap your head around my posts.

posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 11:47 PM
I have been waiting for this to come about(happen). Hilter tried it(?) exactly how I dont know nor care. BUT, we must care about this because worse than normal people with any kind of bad herradity issues will be breaded out. And most couples would reather have the perfect star child than their own. Too bad there just wont be any more children that are products of their own genes and elements.

posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 01:07 AM
Genetic super babies? Is this gonna be the creation of the Marvel Universe in the real world?? Have we unknowingly spawned the creation of the x-men??

actually in all seriousness i don't really see what is wrong with trying to create a few babies that might not suffer from diseases. MS CP SID all can be very devistating. if there is a chance to get rid of them why not take it?
edit on 8-7-2012 by Dyzan because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 02:04 AM
reply to post by ICEKOHLD

they wouldnt have to kill off the "norms".

the next great war will not be the western world vs those in the east. it will be the norms vs the designed / augmented. a superior class, that is truly superior. the creation of a master race. hitler and darwins dream unfolding.


posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 11:50 AM
reply to post by gostr

the next great war will not be the western world vs those in the east.

Actually, that is inevitable.

Of course - so is a civil war in America. We're throwing a hell of a welcoming party for the 22nd century.

China is ultimately going to push a few too many buttons on the international scene and posture a little too sternly - and they will get raped.

That won't solve the growing issues in America as the citizens dispute the purpose and role of the national government (two mutually exclusive concepts with passionate individuals behind each - war is inevitable).

it will be the norms vs the designed / augmented. a superior class, that is truly superior.

I highly doubt it.

For starters - the technology is very primitive. It's mostly capable of being able to mix genetic code and, with considerable refinement, target flawed genetic sequences to prevent genetic diseases.

That's whole orders of magnitude simpler than creating enhanced organisms. While I've speculated on what could be done - the technology to do that is well beyond our current abilities (largely lacking thorough understanding of macroscopic implications of biochemistry). Making matters worse - quantum mechanical effects have been both observed and postulated to take place within organic cells as part of their function. This complicates all models of purely electrochemical cells in a way that can only be hinted at during this time.

Even so - once that technology is possible - I'm not entirely convinced "Human Mk IIs" will become or be perceived a threat to "mark I" humans. If anything were to happen - irrational fears on the part of 'normal' humans (whatever those are) would likely lead them into acts of hostility against the genetically modified humans.

top topics
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in