If Scientist Mastered DNA???

by D wiltshire 8 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  D wiltshire

  Some day maybe scientist will be able to read DNA.
  And maybe someday they might learn how to program DNA with computers.

  This to me doesn't seem that far away.

  When they do they will be able to create new life forms, in effect play God.

  Do you think will man make life vastly better then when he can design it useing DNA or someother Molecule to make new life.

  Will altruisim guide him in what he does with his new abilities?

  If someone lived a trillion X longer than you, and had a billion X more reasoning ability would he come to the same conclusions as you?
• 

  Satanus

  Good questions, d wilt.

  Empires rise, and then fall. Wars come and go, yet life slowly gets better. Likely this technology will be used for good and also in abusive ways. It will be a battle between the large corporations whose bottom line is making money in any ways humanly possible, the militaries/govts of the world, whose bottom line is power/control/security of their respective complexes on one side. On the other side will be intelligent ethical individuals in positions where they can be heard who will speak out and lead in the creating guidelines/associations to fight for its beneficial applications. The direction pubic opinion takes in reaction to the propaganda barrage from each side will decide the day.

  Naturally, fundamentalist religious groups will rail against dna based technology, as they have and continue to do. Everyone knows about the pope and galileo, but does anyone know about the american fundamentalists' preaching against sailing ships converting to steam. During the changeover, some american preachers thought it went against gods natural order to mix water and fire together to make steam. We laugh about that now, and so in a couple of genrations, when dna tech will have been applied in many areas, they will laugh again at fundy resistance to dna tech.

  SS' opinion
• 

  D wiltshire

  Satin,

  That's a intresting conjecture.

  If someone lived a trillion X longer than you, and had a billion X more reasoning ability would he come to the same conclusions as you?
• 

  Abaddon

  Some day? They can read DNA. They can 'programme' DNA too, but technology is quite crude.

  As for new life... well, that would be a massive undertaking, only possible with a significant increase in technology; modification of existing life will continue, and techiques will improve.

  I would imagine within two hundred years many genetic defects that are passed on nowadays will have died out; short and long sight, genetic disease, propencity to cancer, etc.. People will also have really good immune systems and possibly some tinkering to lengthen life. Spot mutations will still take place, as it's 'natures way', but will often be remediable.

  I do think the fuss over genetic manipulation will die down in time. Unless of course the doom-sayers are right, people will see that it's essentially a harmless thing

  I think certain breeds of pedigree dogs (like the Pekinese) are examples of the 'damage' GM can do (hip dysplacia and breathing/sight problems) than soya beans.

  People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...
• 

  Joseph Joachim

  Actually scientist can't read the DNA of complex organisms yet. They can decode it, which is not the same thing. The process of identification of new genes will keep biologists (and statisticians) busy many decades. That's where the money is now
• 

  Abaddon

  I think that's semantic; we're both right, but are using words differently. I say they can read (resolve into data units), but acknowledge they can't decode the meaning of all those data units yet. You use 'decode' for 'read' and visa-versa. I'm not sure who's 'righterer' semantically, but it's not that important.

  Essentially scientists can determine the base coding of DNA strands (GAATGAA etc.).

  They might not know what it means yet, apart from a few thousand sequences here and there in various organsisms.

  People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...
• 

  D wiltshire

  Ab & JJ,

  I realize they have a very limited knowledge of DNA code.
  Perhaps 100 or so years they will know enough, to read it entirely.
  Will this be dangereous or good?
  That depends on who uses this knowledge, a benign or sinister group or individual.
  Reading and programming genetic code will require tremendeous forethought in order to see the effects our changes will have years in the future.
  While it true we can alter genetic code now as our knowledge increases the more caution is needed.

  If someone lived a trillion X longer than you, and had a billion X more reasoning ability would he come to the same conclusions as you?
• 

  Joseph Joachim

  Yes Abbadon I think you're right, I switched read with decode. Then D wiltshire must have meant decode in his original post.

  Joseph Joachim - a overly-enthusiastic pundit of borderline reality
• 

  metatron

  My obsession is this: Suppose genes of various creatures are
  completely decoded and no complete blueprint is ever found.

  In this respect, genes would be more like a token or ticket
  you present to a person who checks your hat and coat at a
  restaurant. They give your item of apparel but have no detailed
  plan for producing it (they don't make hats or coats).

  I think there is growing evidence that while genes clearly
  refer to a total creature, they don't directly contain all the
  information needed to complete it - wide recognition of this
  could transform our ideas about life, the universe and God.

  metatron