Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Nano Werk)   6'4" DNA researchers with full heads of hair, muscular builds, sculpted jawlines and piercing blue eyes say that they've discovered a way to edit any DNA sequence at will   (nanowerk.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, DNA, nucleic acid sequence, researchers, animals and plants, Cell Biology, molecular biology, binding proteins, Janet  
•       •       •

10733 clicks; posted to Geek » on 27 Aug 2013 at 11:03 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



158 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-08-27 10:26:04 AM  
www.treksf.com
Approves
 
2013-08-27 10:28:36 AM  
Ethically speaking, editing DNA is perfectly fine

We are in a game against extinction.

Our ancestors wished they could program themselves and give them a leg-up against the rest of the world.

Now we are in a position to do that
 
2013-08-27 10:33:44 AM  

cman: Ethically speaking, editing DNA is perfectly fine

We are in a game against extinction.

Our ancestors wished they could program themselves and give them a leg-up against the rest of the world.

Now we are in a position to do that


Well, an arm-up, anyway

theinfosphere.org
 
2013-08-27 10:36:58 AM  

cman: Ethically speaking, editing DNA is perfectly fine

We are in a game against extinction.

Our ancestors wished they could program themselves and give them a leg-up against the rest of the world.

Now we are in a position to do that


But Jesus, cman.  He would frown because I don't know.
 
2013-08-27 10:39:01 AM  
Um, can these DNA researchers be sent to my chambers?
 
2013-08-27 10:44:21 AM  

Elandriel: cman: Ethically speaking, editing DNA is perfectly fine

We are in a game against extinction.

Our ancestors wished they could program themselves and give them a leg-up against the rest of the world.

Now we are in a position to do that

But Jesus, cman.  He would frown because I don't know.


I predict DNA editing and stem cell research will quickly become like abortion for the folks with religious objections - their case will be the exception, the one case where it's acceptable, because, well, that's different.  But they'll still oppose it for anyone else.
 
2013-08-27 10:56:29 AM  
Are they from Brussels? Did anyone try the vegemite?
 
2013-08-27 11:05:48 AM  
I don't think editing DNA is going to do much for your looks after you reach adulthood.
 
2013-08-27 11:07:38 AM  
1 step closer to the zombie apocalypse if you ask me...
 
2013-08-27 11:07:51 AM  
 DNA researchers say that they've discovered a way to edit any DNA sequence at will .

It will henceforth be known as NAD .
 
2013-08-27 11:08:07 AM  
Is it too late to get my DNA tweaked? I could go for some of that muscular build and sculpted jaw stuff. I have money.
 
2013-08-27 11:10:08 AM  
Exhibit A:

media.screened.com

1st attempt - Failure
2nd attempt - Success Aryan
 
2013-08-27 11:10:46 AM  
Except for living longer. That's always bad because atoms have an age.
 
2013-08-27 11:10:54 AM  
Subby forgot the Blonde Hair...
 
2013-08-27 11:11:40 AM  

Arkanaut: I don't think editing DNA is going to do much for your looks after you reach adulthood.


I dunno. If we're able to inject a person with something that goes, like, "If you see this sequence, delete and replace with X", you could probably fix some diseases that are 'caused' by your body producing farked up proteins/not producing the right proteins.

Or basically wipe out a lot of cancers.

Obviously that's still a ways away, I suspect.
 
2013-08-27 11:12:39 AM  
I think sex robots are a much more promising area of research.
 
2013-08-27 11:13:31 AM  
And it'll be weaponized into cancer bombs in just 6 months. Yay, biological/chemical warfare!
 
2013-08-27 11:13:33 AM  

Felgraf: Arkanaut: I don't think editing DNA is going to do much for your looks after you reach adulthood.

I dunno. If we're able to inject a person with something that goes, like, "If you see this sequence, delete and replace with X", you could probably fix some diseases that are 'caused' by your body producing farked up proteins/not producing the right proteins.

Or basically wipe out a lot of cancers.

Obviously that's still a ways away, I suspect.


Well, this would be good unless the Koch brothers have it used on them.  Maybe they will turn into giant sandworms like in the later Dune books..

/or explode, like in Scanners, which would be satisfying..
 
2013-08-27 11:13:42 AM  

Quantum Apostrophe: Except for living longer. That's always bad because atoms have an age.


You do realize that every seven years you are pretty much an entirely different person, right?

Everything on a cellular level changes. You have the same memories, but that is about it
 
2013-08-27 11:15:17 AM  
Is it Friday already?
 
2013-08-27 11:16:02 AM  
You know who else...?
static.guim.co.uk
 
2013-08-27 11:16:47 AM  
ORA-01578: ORACLE cell block corrupted (strand # 11, block # 4262)
ORA-01110: strand 11: '/db/oracle/PROD/db/madula_st/cell/sysaux01.dna'
 
2013-08-27 11:16:49 AM  
cman:You have the same memories, but that is about it

I overcome this minor flaw with copious amounts of alcohol.
 
2013-08-27 11:18:25 AM  
I've been storing this J. Holmes DNA in my freezer for a while now...
 
2013-08-27 11:19:04 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Elandriel: cman: Ethically speaking, editing DNA is perfectly fine

We are in a game against extinction.

Our ancestors wished they could program themselves and give them a leg-up against the rest of the world.

Now we are in a position to do that

But Jesus, cman.  He would frown because I don't know.

I predict DNA editing and stem cell research will quickly become like abortion for the folks with religious objections - their case will be the exception, the one case where it's acceptable, because, well, that's different.  But they'll still oppose it for anyone else.


I predict that people with an axe to grind will pop a hamstring to denigrate those not on their end of the political and/or religious spectrum, using a story without a religious or political slant.
 
2013-08-27 11:20:53 AM  
img.fark.net
 
2013-08-27 11:22:59 AM  

Carousel Beast: Benevolent Misanthrope: Elandriel: cman: Ethically speaking, editing DNA is perfectly fine

We are in a game against extinction.

Our ancestors wished they could program themselves and give them a leg-up against the rest of the world.

Now we are in a position to do that

But Jesus, cman.  He would frown because I don't know.

I predict DNA editing and stem cell research will quickly become like abortion for the folks with religious objections - their case will be the exception, the one case where it's acceptable, because, well, that's different.  But they'll still oppose it for anyone else.

I predict that people with an axe to grind will pop a hamstring to denigrate those not on their end of the political and/or religious spectrum, using a story without a religious or political slant.


Both of these predictions seem pretty likely to me.  One of them hasn't happened yet, though, so Benevolent Misanthropewins!
 
2013-08-27 11:25:41 AM  

Carousel Beast: Benevolent Misanthrope: Elandriel: cman: Ethically speaking, editing DNA is perfectly fine

We are in a game against extinction.

Our ancestors wished they could program themselves and give them a leg-up against the rest of the world.

Now we are in a position to do that

But Jesus, cman.  He would frown because I don't know.

I predict DNA editing and stem cell research will quickly become like abortion for the folks with religious objections - their case will be the exception, the one case where it's acceptable, because, well, that's different.  But they'll still oppose it for anyone else.

I predict that people with an axe to grind will pop a hamstring to denigrate those not on their end of the political and/or religious spectrum, using a story without a religious or political slant.


Lighten up, Francis.  I was responding to Elandriel's "But Jesus would frown on it" comment.
 
2013-08-27 11:28:45 AM  
Sounds good, but will I have to retrieve the Egg of the Phoenix so I can afford the life extending treatments?

/E.C. or Easy?
 
2013-08-27 11:31:35 AM  
 but i has all of this cept blue eyes and and my skin has an abundance  of melanin producing genes. I mean i could have them make them recessive but my credit rating is fine.
 
2013-08-27 11:31:37 AM  

no icon tact: ORA-01578: ORACLE cell block corrupted (strand # 11, block # 4262)
ORA-01110: strand 11: '/db/oracle/PROD/db/madula_st/cell/sysaux01.dna'


So much this. I get called in to big companies all the time to fix up clusterfark code that previous dev teams charged seven figures for. The thought of seeing the equivalent in living, breathing, suffering creatures makes me shudder. . .
 
2013-08-27 11:32:28 AM  
qtom.s3.amazonaws.com

Shame his kid was such a jerkass.
 
2013-08-27 11:33:23 AM  
OK but what if a blokes name is Jim or Steve, or Gary.  Why are people named Will only allowed this treatement?
 
2013-08-27 11:33:25 AM  

Quantum Apostrophe: Except for living longer. That's always bad because atoms have an age.


You realize that people aren't necessarily mocking the idea of living longer, just mocking your 'proof' that immortality has to be possible because 'atoms don't age', right?

/Or maybe you don't.
//By the way, I seem to recall that we don't *know* that protons don't have a half life-and in some models, they do. It has not yet been experimentally verified, mind.
///So atoms might very well age.
 
2013-08-27 11:33:58 AM  
Researchers are 6'4" (193 cm)?!?  Why so tall?  They'll bump their heads on stuff.  Better to be 5'10" (177cm).
 
2013-08-27 11:34:14 AM  

cman: Quantum Apostrophe: Except for living longer. That's always bad because atoms have an age.

You do realize that every seven years you are pretty much an entirely different person, right?

Everything on a cellular level changes. You have the same memories, but that is about it


I know. You have to realize most of my posts are from the point of view of the kind of "arguments" I get from Space Nutters, ie nothing of substance.

Atoms are, well, atoms, they're all the same and certainly don't have a sense of time at the biological scale. I see no fundamental limit to extending our lifespan. There may be plenty of others, but atoms becoming slow and middle-aged ain't one of them.
 
2013-08-27 11:36:58 AM  
Can we call immortality therapy "Boosterspice"?

Boosterspice is a drug compound developed by genetic engineers on . It interrupts the aging process in <a data-cke-saved-href="http://larryniven.wikia.com/wiki/Human" title="Human">humans. One course of treatment lasts 25 years and regular treatment results in the user's  apparent age stopping at the chronological age when treatment begun.
 
2013-08-27 11:38:17 AM  

Volunteers?

farm1.static.flickr.com

 
2013-08-27 11:38:58 AM  

dj_spanmaster: And it'll be weaponized into cancer bombs in just 6 months. Yay, biological/chemical warfare!


I bet we'd finally get a cure all for cancer then.  Anti-cancer bomb or something.  Could you imagine how advanced medical technology could get and how quickly if there was a good old fashioned arms race based around genetic weapons?
 
2013-08-27 11:42:29 AM  
Does subby assume all DNA researchers are men or just like really tall chicks?
 
2013-08-27 11:43:34 AM  
Surely the Law of Unintended Consequences applies.
 
2013-08-27 11:44:20 AM  
Yeah I dont know that I like this, I mean it cheapens my gawd given tallness, blue eyes and large cawk. I mean about the only thing I have that most would reccomend changing is the gingervitis.
 
2013-08-27 11:44:35 AM  
I usually just use Notepad...

//oldschool
 
2013-08-27 11:44:55 AM  

piperTom: Researchers are 6'4" (193 cm)?!?  Why so tall?  They'll bump their heads on stuff.  Better to be 5'10" (177cm).


Probably WWE fans.  5'10" is pretty close to the ideal size, however I played basketball and at the time I wished I had another 2-4 inches. That's the difference between scholorship and a paying for school.
 
2013-08-27 11:45:12 AM  

fireclown: Shame his kid was such a jerkass.


He was honestly kind of a prick too.
 
2013-08-27 11:47:35 AM  
6'3" With FANTASTIC hair and awesome eyes.,..

but I inherited the fatass gene in my family, so you can't win them all.

/Super modest as well!
 
2013-08-27 11:49:09 AM  

The Irresponsible Captain: Can we call immortality therapy "Boosterspice"?


Absolutely!
 
2013-08-27 11:51:04 AM  
FINALLY the four-assed monkey can be a reality.

images2.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-08-27 11:54:12 AM  
12 inch penis!?
 
2013-08-27 11:57:51 AM  

piperTom: Researchers are 6'4" (193 cm)?!?  Why so tall?  They'll bump their heads on stuff.  Better to be 5'10" (177cm).


What, and become king of the manlets?
 
2013-08-27 11:58:27 AM  

Felgraf: Arkanaut: I don't think editing DNA is going to do much for your looks after you reach adulthood.

I dunno. If we're able to inject a person with something that goes, like, "If you see this sequence, delete and replace with X", you could probably fix some diseases that are 'caused' by your body producing farked up proteins/not producing the right proteins.

Or basically wipe out a lot of cancers.

Obviously that's still a ways away, I suspect.


I was specifically talking about appearance -- the "6'4", muscular build, sculpted jawline" stuff in the headline.  People generally stop growing after age 20 or so, so height and bone structure is probably not going to be affected by DNA therapy.  I suppose you might be able to tweak musculature by inducing more testosterone production, and if melanin is constantly replenished you can do eye color too.  And now that I think about it if there's a gene that induces faster metabolism, so you burn more calories, getting that into your genome might make you thinner.  But otherwise your adult appearance is going to be the same regardless of gene therapy.
 
2013-08-27 11:58:47 AM  
Meh... I've already got 6'4", HWP yadda yadda, DNA to donate to a qualifying Farkette.  No editing required!
 
2013-08-27 11:59:20 AM  
So how much would it cost to grow a second penis? This is important.
 
2013-08-27 12:01:26 PM  
img69.imageshack.us
 
2013-08-27 12:01:38 PM  

no icon tact: ORA-01578: ORACLE cell block corrupted (strand # 11, block # 4262)
ORA-01110: strand 11: '/db/oracle/PROD/db/madula_st/cell/sysaux01.dna'


sphotos-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2013-08-27 12:03:27 PM  

stuffy: 12 inch penis!?


Just hope your doctor uad good hearing, otherwise you will end up with a 12 pianist.
 
2013-08-27 12:06:47 PM  

cman: Ethically speaking, editing DNA is perfectly fine

We are in a game against extinction.

Our ancestors wished they could program themselves and give them a leg-up against the rest of the world.

Now we are in a position to do that


Meanwhile we allow anyone to reproduce as Idiocracy slowly takes place.
 
2013-08-27 12:07:52 PM  
Great, designer children. Whole generations that look almost identical because their parents followed the current fads in "MetroGenetics"
 
2013-08-27 12:09:18 PM  

Boosterspice: The Irresponsible Captain: Can we call immortality therapy "Boosterspice"?

Absolutely!


It must flow.
 
2013-08-27 12:09:50 PM  
So... just out of curiosity, let's pretend for a moment that I am not already perfect in every way. In this completely imaginary scenario, instead of being built like a Greek God, I'm 5' 9", overweight, and I'm bow-legged and have a 4 inch penis. Hypothetically. If they found a way to rewrite my genetic code to be more-or-less perfect, would I actually change? Would anything at all happen? Would I die horribly? I can see how it could fix some genetic diseases in a fully grown adult, but could you change your physical build/appearance once you are fully developed, or would that have to happen when you were very young? Not that I would want the gene to give me a huge black wang anyways. I'm just asking for a friend.
 
2013-08-27 12:12:40 PM  

piperTom: Researchers are 6'4" (193 cm)?!?  Why so tall?  They'll bump their heads on stuff.  Better to be 5'10" (177cm).


You know how I know you're short?
 
2013-08-27 12:14:54 PM  

mod3072: So... just out of curiosity, let's pretend for a moment that I am not already perfect in every way. In this completely imaginary scenario, instead of being built like a Greek God, I'm 5' 9", overweight, and I'm bow-legged and have a 4 inch penis. Hypothetically. If they found a way to rewrite my genetic code to be more-or-less perfect, would I actually change? Would anything at all happen? Would I die horribly? I can see how it could fix some genetic diseases in a fully grown adult, but could you change your physical build/appearance once you are fully developed, or would that have to happen when you were very young? Not that I would want the gene to give me a huge black wang anyways. I'm just asking for a friend.


You might could grow yer wang since its soft tissue, but once your bone's growth plates are fused you arent gonna get taller, your kids would be but not yourself.
 
2013-08-27 12:15:26 PM  

LrdPhoenix: dj_spanmaster: And it'll be weaponized into cancer bombs in just 6 months. Yay, biological/chemical warfare!

I bet we'd finally get a cure all for cancer then.  Anti-cancer bomb or something.  Could you imagine how advanced medical technology could get and how quickly if there was a good old fashioned arms race based around genetic weapons?


That term just blew my mind.
 
2013-08-27 12:16:02 PM  

cman: Quantum Apostrophe: Except for living longer. That's always bad because atoms have an age.

You do realize that every seven years you are pretty much an entirely different person, right?

Everything on a cellular level changes. You have the same memories, but that is about it


So that's what happened with my ex-wife.

I can't tell what direction this will go, Gattaca or zombie apocalypse.
 
2013-08-27 12:17:01 PM  

mod3072: So... just out of curiosity, let's pretend for a moment that I am not already perfect in every way. In this completely imaginary scenario, instead of being built like a Greek God, I'm 5' 9", overweight, and I'm bow-legged and have a 4 inch penis. Hypothetically. If they found a way to rewrite my genetic code to be more-or-less perfect, would I actually change? Would anything at all happen? Would I die horribly? I can see how it could fix some genetic diseases in a fully grown adult, but could you change your physical build/appearance once you are fully developed, or would that have to happen when you were very young? Not that I would want the gene to give me a huge black wang anyways. I'm just asking for a friend.


I figure if there were a way, it'd be to first provide you with a gene that would make transplants and grafts more accepted by your body. That way, all the painful surgery required to Frankenstein your friend would at least have a chance to work. All that, would only leave your friend with a farked up personality... which may be possible to fix with a talk show host gene - though, I'd prefer your friend doesn't change a thing, and come be my wing man at the local bar.
 
2013-08-27 12:19:35 PM  
Robin Thicke sees what you did there,  Subs.
 
2013-08-27 12:19:46 PM  

arbitterm: Great, designer children. Whole generations that look almost identical because their parents followed the current fads in "MetroGenetics"


Or were custom designed by their parents to beat all the other kids at something. Sure, some parents treat their kids like fashion accessories, some treat them as ways to live vicariously.
Amazingly, we've already come up with words to describe the results.
Enhanced intelligence? Mentat, or Alpha.
Enhanced strength? Elemental or Beta.
Enhanced strength but dumb as a rock? Genejack.
You're not genegeneered, just the product of your parents bumping uglies? Stravaging freebirth.
 
2013-08-27 12:20:33 PM  
img199.imageshack.us
 
2013-08-27 12:22:37 PM  

piperTom: Researchers are 6'4" (193 cm)?!?  Why so tall?


Cause some of us chicks are tall.  ;-)
 
2013-08-27 12:24:11 PM  

Felgraf: Quantum Apostrophe: Except for living longer. That's always bad because atoms have an age.

You realize that people aren't necessarily mocking the idea of living longer, just mocking your 'proof' that immortality has to be possible because 'atoms don't age', right?

/Or maybe you don't.
//By the way, I seem to recall that we don't *know* that protons don't have a half life-and in some models, they do. It has not yet been experimentally verified, mind.
///So atoms might very well age.


I enjoy the thought that the components of atoms aren't actually "aware" of time, because they are "immortal", and simply move around.  And I like thinking about how this thought experiment might explain the two slit experiment.

But yeah, to suggest that because those components are immortal, things that are made of them are also immortal is as silly as saying that because of the way our climate moves water around, the oceans will always be the same.

It's the changes that we're trying to overcome here, not the half-life of carbon or some shiat.

/Is that seriously an argument QA makes?
 
2013-08-27 12:24:28 PM  
Penis? Nah. Leave ol' Johnny like he is. (Mayyyybe a baculum, but the possibility of fractures during some of the better positions must be taken into account).

Gimme fingers that don't cramp up after a full night of teh sex and Gene Simmons' tongue.

/When the lady cries tears of joy. For real. That's when you know it's worth it.
//I got goddamn carpal tunnel after one of "those" weekends, had to bandage my hand and make up a dumb story about falling down a flight of stairs
///OK, I do want something like an elephant's trunk down there, but it would take forever, cost a brazillion and stick peanuts up my ass so it's a definite maybe
 
2013-08-27 12:25:33 PM  

p4p3rm4t3: [570x350 from http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/6332/x6go.jpg image 570x350]


The last chicken in the shop.
 
2013-08-27 12:27:01 PM  
Big deal. I've been manipulating my DNA for years.
 
2013-08-27 12:27:47 PM  

Felgraf: Arkanaut: I don't think editing DNA is going to do much for your looks after you reach adulthood.

I dunno. If we're able to inject a person with something that goes, like, "If you see this sequence, delete and replace with X", you could probably fix some diseases that are 'caused' by your body producing farked up proteins/not producing the right proteins.

Or basically wipe out a lot of cancers.

Obviously that's still a ways away, I suspect.


we do that already with gene therapy, or at least so I understand the process, and IIRC we basically do a completely replacement of all the cells in our body about every 7 years or so, so IF you were able to infect every cell in your body with new DNA code that turned on or off certain genes, then it seems like yes, gradually you would be "reformed in favor of your new matrix" so to speak....thought he transition could be VERY weird....


So actual science-talking person want to explain to me why I'm an idiot now?
 
2013-08-27 12:27:55 PM  

Arkanaut: Felgraf: Arkanaut: I don't think editing DNA is going to do much for your looks after you reach adulthood.

I dunno. If we're able to inject a person with something that goes, like, "If you see this sequence, delete and replace with X", you could probably fix some diseases that are 'caused' by your body producing farked up proteins/not producing the right proteins.

Or basically wipe out a lot of cancers.

Obviously that's still a ways away, I suspect.

I was specifically talking about appearance -- the "6'4", muscular build, sculpted jawline" stuff in the headline.  People generally stop growing after age 20 or so, so height and bone structure is probably not going to be affected by DNA therapy.  I suppose you might be able to tweak musculature by inducing more testosterone production, and if melanin is constantly replenished you can do eye color too.  And now that I think about it if there's a gene that induces faster metabolism, so you burn more calories, getting that into your genome might make you thinner.  But otherwise your adult appearance is going to be the same regardless of gene therapy.


Oh! Yes. On that I agree, then.
 
2013-08-27 12:31:47 PM  
Doctor Bashir, I Presume
 
2013-08-27 12:32:02 PM  
I know you all just want to gab on about superficial things but this development means much less than what the headline implies.  It's big news in molecular biology but don't expect to see any practical developments outside of that field for awhile if ever.
 
2013-08-27 12:33:50 PM  

p4p3rm4t3: [570x350 from http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/6332/x6go.jpg image 570x350]


Lager! The only thing that can kill a vindaloo
 
2013-08-27 12:44:28 PM  

BeesNuts: Felgraf: Quantum Apostrophe: Except for living longer. That's always bad because atoms have an age.

You realize that people aren't necessarily mocking the idea of living longer, just mocking your 'proof' that immortality has to be possible because 'atoms don't age', right?

/Or maybe you don't.
//By the way, I seem to recall that we don't *know* that protons don't have a half life-and in some models, they do. It has not yet been experimentally verified, mind.
///So atoms might very well age.

I enjoy the thought that the components of atoms aren't actually "aware" of time, because they are "immortal", and simply move around.  And I like thinking about how this thought experiment might explain the two slit experiment.

But yeah, to suggest that because those components are immortal, things that are made of them are also immortal is as silly as saying that because of the way our climate moves water around, the oceans will always be the same.

It's the changes that we're trying to overcome here, not the half-life of carbon or some shiat.

/Is that seriously an argument QA makes?


Well, an argument I've seen him make is that since atoms last for ever, it should be *possible* to achieve human immortality.

Which is... just... a weird leap of logic. Much like the objects he seems to deride. Or "We're living longer now than we have in the past, therefore human immortality is possible."

Not so say I don't think we *shouldn't* research human immortality. I just don't think we have proof that it's *possible*.
 
2013-08-27 12:44:41 PM  

dj_spanmaster: And it'll be weaponized into cancer bombs in just 6 months. Yay, biological/chemical warfare!


We already have those, they are called nuclear weapons.
 
2013-08-27 12:55:43 PM  

doubled99: Big deal. I've been manipulating my DNA for years.


Most of mine just winds up in a sock ...
 
2013-08-27 12:56:40 PM  

dj_spanmaster: And it'll be weaponized into cancer bombs in just 6 months. Yay, biological/chemical warfare!


Pretty much ANY technological advancement can be weaponized. Kzinti Lesson, and all. Fark, I can think of ways to weaponize a *teddy bear*.

If you want technology  that *could* be weaponized to stop being researched, you would, almost literally, have to stop all research everywhere. Forever.
 
2013-08-27 12:57:37 PM  
Apparrntly he gets pretty defensive if you bring up immortality pills.
 
2013-08-27 01:01:44 PM  
as long as it doesn't end up like  gundam seed i'm ok with this.
 
2013-08-27 01:01:47 PM  
upload.wikimedia.org

So, Plasmids. We're talking about Plasmids here, right?


Anyway, I'm looking forward to evolving, today!
 
2013-08-27 01:02:09 PM  

phenn: piperTom: Researchers are 6'4" (193 cm)?!?  Why so tall?

Cause some of us chicks are tall.  ;-)


You're already spoken for, IIRC, so you don't count. ;^)

/178 cm tall

BTW, don't they use 3d printing machines to make the new sequences?
 
2013-08-27 01:03:08 PM  
Can it restore my foreskin?
 
2013-08-27 01:08:02 PM  
6'1 is where it's at.  Short enough to fit into cars, tall enough to be awesome.
 
2013-08-27 01:08:25 PM  

cman: You do realize that every seven years you are pretty much an entirely different person, right?

Everything on a cellular level changes. You have the same memories, but that is about it


Even those are fluid. We don't record memories like a video, and every time we recall a memory and "put it back" the memory can become altered.

Magorn: we do that already with gene therapy, or at least so I understand the process, and IIRC we basically do a completely replacement of all the cells in our body about every 7 years or so, so IF you were able to infect every cell in your body with new DNA code that turned on or off certain genes, then it seems like yes, gradually you would be "reformed in favor of your new matrix" so to speak....thought he transition could be VERY weird....


So actual science-talking person want to explain to me why I'm an idiot now?


Because it would take more than simply replacing your cells to alter your appearance. Your appearance has been shaped over the course of your life and is determined in a huge way by the things that aren't cells (like bone for instance).

And yes, we have some gene therapies that work, particularly ones for some ocular diseases, but there we are fixing biochemical and genetic problems. Some subtle changes, like say eye or hair colour we could mostly do with genetic editing but things like facial features and height? Not a chance, at least not anytime soon. We just don't know enough about what to change plus those things are only partially genetic anyway.
 
2013-08-27 01:17:40 PM  
Man, we are going to be oneboring race in the future...
 
2013-08-27 01:22:23 PM  

Saiga410: OK but what if a blokes name is Jim or Steve, or Gary.  Why are people named Will only allowed this treatement?


As a 6'2" Blue eyed, square jawed, Will; is there a reference I am missing?
 
2013-08-27 01:25:09 PM  
i1.ytimg.com
Approves.
 
2013-08-27 01:32:42 PM  

Burr: Man, we are going to be oneboring race in the future...


When everybody is 6'4 with chiseled features and rock-hard abs, my paunchy, balding, ugly mug will make me a sex god because of how "exotic" I look...or at least that's what I keep telling myself.
 
2013-08-27 01:32:52 PM  

DrRatchet: So, Plasmids. We're talking about Plasmids here, right?


Anyway, I'm looking forward to evolving, today!


Nope. Well you do insert a plasmid in to the cell to express the TALEN system, but that is just to get the editing machinery in to the cell. The TALEN system is derived from a plant defense mechanism. Basically it is a bunch of engineered proteins that bind to DNA that they are designed to target. One way you can use them is in pairs that then cleave a section of DNA. If you put in replacement DNA with the TALEN's you can substitute it in.

Why we won't use this for editing DNA in people, although it can be used on genomic DNA, is efficiency. Only a portion of the designed TALENs end up working, only a few of the cells you try and get the TALENs in to are properly "transfected", and some won't assemble right and cut, etc. We looked in to using TALENs for some research projects and it was a huge amount of effort to get successfully edited cells. It just isn't appropriate for much beyond cell culture work and some model organisms that you can work with in very large numbers.
 
2013-08-27 01:34:50 PM  

Ishidan: arbitterm: Great, designer children. Whole generations that look almost identical because their parents followed the current fads in "MetroGenetics"

Or were custom designed by their parents to beat all the other kids at something. Sure, some parents treat their kids like fashion accessories, some treat them as ways to live vicariously.
Amazingly, we've already come up with words to describe the results.
Enhanced intelligence? Mentat, or Alpha.
Enhanced strength? Elemental or Beta.
Enhanced strength but dumb as a rock? Genejack.
You're not genegeneered, just the product of your parents bumping uglies? Stravaging freebirth.


good to see another BattleTech fan
 
2013-08-27 01:49:35 PM  

Felgraf: Quantum Apostrophe: Except for living longer. That's always bad because atoms have an age.

You realize that people aren't necessarily mocking the idea of living longer, just mocking your 'proof' that immortality has to be possible because 'atoms don't age', right?

/Or maybe you don't.
//By the way, I seem to recall that we don't *know* that protons don't have a half life-and in some models, they do. It has not yet been experimentally verified, mind.
///So atoms might very well age.


What's the worst is that in threads with ASTONISHINGLY great news for life extension like this, he leads with crap like that instead of "holy shiat! We are one step closer to the thing I dream about!"

I sense that if he were the only person made immortal, it would end for him like Burgess Meredith in the Twilight Zone.
 
2013-08-27 01:50:44 PM  

Arkanaut: Felgraf: Arkanaut: I don't think editing DNA is going to do much for your looks after you reach adulthood.

I dunno. If we're able to inject a person with something that goes, like, "If you see this sequence, delete and replace with X", you could probably fix some diseases that are 'caused' by your body producing farked up proteins/not producing the right proteins.

Or basically wipe out a lot of cancers.

Obviously that's still a ways away, I suspect.

I was specifically talking about appearance -- the "6'4", muscular build, sculpted jawline" stuff in the headline.  People generally stop growing after age 20 or so, so height and bone structure is probably not going to be affected by DNA therapy.  I suppose you might be able to tweak musculature by inducing more testosterone production, and if melanin is constantly replenished you can do eye color too.  And now that I think about it if there's a gene that induces faster metabolism, so you burn more calories, getting that into your genome might make you thinner.  But otherwise your adult appearance is going to be the same regardless of gene therapy.


They stop growing because DNA says so. Tell the DNA to keep doing this function in a specific way and it should still work no? Isn't this the type of control over DNA we are discussing?
 
2013-08-27 01:56:10 PM  

Felgraf: BeesNuts: Felgraf: Quantum Apostrophe: Except for living longer. That's always bad because atoms have an age.

You realize that people aren't necessarily mocking the idea of living longer, just mocking your 'proof' that immortality has to be possible because 'atoms don't age', right?

/Or maybe you don't.
//By the way, I seem to recall that we don't *know* that protons don't have a half life-and in some models, they do. It has not yet been experimentally verified, mind.
///So atoms might very well age.

I enjoy the thought that the components of atoms aren't actually "aware" of time, because they are "immortal", and simply move around.  And I like thinking about how this thought experiment might explain the two slit experiment.

But yeah, to suggest that because those components are immortal, things that are made of them are also immortal is as silly as saying that because of the way our climate moves water around, the oceans will always be the same.

It's the changes that we're trying to overcome here, not the half-life of carbon or some shiat.

/Is that seriously an argument QA makes?

Well, an argument I've seen him make is that since atoms last for ever, it should be *possible* to achieve human immortality.

Which is... just... a weird leap of logic. Much like the objects he seems to deride. Or "We're living longer now than we have in the past, therefore human immortality is possible."

Not so say I don't think we *shouldn't* research human immortality. I just don't think we have proof that it's *possible*.


Why would we want that?  I'll take this opportunity to say fark no we shouldn't be working on immortality until we have our societies general shiat together.  We are failing to feed, clothe, and educate the kids we have now, let alone them, their kids, their kids' kids... We're spending too much on health care and getting bad outcomes.

If we don't fix those problems first, we're bad at priorities.
 
2013-08-27 01:59:35 PM  

piperTom: Researchers are 6'4" (193 cm)?!? Why so tall?


Social benefits.
Perceived alpha status.
It is the reason we elect tall people as president and to corporate boardrooms.
Researchers studying dating sites tweaked fake male profiles to see what factors generated the most positive responses. Taking generic person X, they found that adding 2 inches to his stated height had the same effect as giving him $50,000 in stated additional income. Chicks like tall guys.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-08-27 01:59:45 PM  
So we can tailor people for different purposes?  Maybe we can call the various models Alphas, Betas, Deltas, etc.
 
2013-08-27 02:06:13 PM  
6'4"±1" seems to be the total dick height range.  Glad I stopped at 6'2".
 
2013-08-27 02:13:09 PM  

Saiga410: OK but what if a blokes name is Jim or Steve, or Gary.  Why are people named Will only allowed this treatement?


Picard:  Fire at will!
Riker:  What the fu-
Worf phasers Riker out of existence; Picard looks shocked for a moment, then a small smile appears.
Picard:  Worf, we must communicate better, but accidents do happen.
 
2013-08-27 02:15:20 PM  

bighairyguy: 6'4"±1" seems to be the total dick height range.  Glad I stopped at 6'2".



I'm 6'4" and I wear elevator shoes to get a few more inches.
 
2013-08-27 02:20:53 PM  

doubled99: Big deal. I've been manipulating my DNA for years.


3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-08-27 02:21:09 PM  

Cubicle Jockey: piperTom: Researchers are 6'4" (193 cm)?!? Why so tall?

Social benefits.
Perceived alpha status.
It is the reason we elect tall people as president and to corporate boardrooms.
Researchers studying dating sites tweaked fake male profiles to see what factors generated the most positive responses. Taking generic person X, they found that adding 2 inches to his stated height had the same effect as giving him $50,000 in stated additional income. Chicks like tall guys.


Which has always made me wonder if it's genuinely attractive to be tall, or if women intrinsically desire some level of 'inferiority' to their chosen mate.  You see women dating men shorter than themselves, worse educated than themselves, etc. much less frequently than the alternative.  If it were just a matter of success and wealth and education, it would make sense as a sort of 'societal evolution' to ensure that one's children are provided for.  The height thing makes a bit of sense as a regular evolutionary desire to mate with someone who isn't just healthy, but physically superior to other potential mates.  But it's really interesting to me that height in particular has such a profound effect on apparent attractiveness.

/5'10", glad I didn't grow more for convenience's sake.
//I'm like the guy from idiocracy.  Average in EVERY CONCEIVABLE WAY.
 
2013-08-27 02:24:14 PM  

treesloth: Saiga410: OK but what if a blokes name is Jim or Steve, or Gary.  Why are people named Will only allowed this treatement?

Picard:  Fire at will!
Riker:  What the fu-
Worf phasers Riker out of existence; Picard looks shocked for a moment, then a small smile appears.
Picard:  Worf, we must communicate better, but accidents do happen.


That gag makes more sense with Data instead of Worf, what with Data's literalness.
 
2013-08-27 02:25:28 PM  

BeesNuts: Cubicle Jockey: Taking generic person X, they found that adding 2 inches to his stated height had the same effect as giving him $50,000 in stated additional income. Chicks like tall guys.

Which has always made me wonder if it's genuinely attractive to be tall, or if women intrinsically desire some level of 'inferiority' to their chosen mate.


To clarify, since that's bound to rustle some jimmies the way it's worded.  When we're talking about women dating tall men, we might be talking an inch or two or a head or more.  I'm kind of talking specifically about when I see a couple with more than a head's height difference.  I can't help but simultaneously wonder if the man likes short women because he can throw them around the bedroom, and if the woman likes tall men because she wants to be thrown about the bedroom.
 
2013-08-27 02:36:22 PM  

Wellon Dowd: Does subby assume all DNA researchers are men or just like really tall chicks?


Where all T's now.
 
2013-08-27 02:36:32 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Elandriel: cman: Ethically speaking, editing DNA is perfectly fine

We are in a game against extinction.

Our ancestors wished they could program themselves and give them a leg-up against the rest of the world.

Now we are in a position to do that

But Jesus, cman.  He would frown because I don't know.

I predict DNA editing and stem cell research will quickly become like abortion for the folks with religious objections - their case will be the exception, the one case where it's acceptable, because, well, that's different.  But they'll still oppose it for anyone else.


Not true for us all.  I'm all for it curing or eradicating diseases like Cancer.  Helping to diminish or cure birth defects like Autism, or helping people recover from heart attacks, strokes, or terrible accidents.  I'm not sure it should be used to turn people into the physical embodiment of Adonis or Venus.  Or create a race of Merpeople or humans with wings.
 
2013-08-27 02:37:05 PM  

Big_Fat_Liar: Wellon Dowd: Does subby assume all DNA researchers are men or just like really tall chicks?

Where all T's now.


God farking dammit, the joke is even lamer with a typo...fark.
 
2013-08-27 02:41:19 PM  

Oldiron_79: mod3072: So... just out of curiosity, let's pretend for a moment that I am not already perfect in every way. In this completely imaginary scenario, instead of being built like a Greek God, I'm 5' 9", overweight, and I'm bow-legged and have a 4 inch penis. Hypothetically. If they found a way to rewrite my genetic code to be more-or-less perfect, would I actually change? Would anything at all happen? Would I die horribly? I can see how it could fix some genetic diseases in a fully grown adult, but could you change your physical build/appearance once you are fully developed, or would that have to happen when you were very young? Not that I would want the gene to give me a huge black wang anyways. I'm just asking for a friend.

You might could grow yer wang since its soft tissue, but once your bone's growth plates are fused you arent gonna get taller, your kids would be but not yourself.


that depends. Are you simply swapping amino acids or are you activating them?

Right now, just replacing DNA could only disrupt actively read and expressed sites. In order to grow people to 6'4" you'd have to not only change the genes but actually express the genes in the proper order to cannibalize existing tissue and then rebuild In the target spec (and it would probably hurt to boot)

Basically, we now have a way to disrupt or tweak genes that are being actively used by the body. We can probably disrupt things like cancers and other broken gene disorders that are actively expressed and that would be it.
 
2013-08-27 02:51:03 PM  

ReverendJynxed: They stop growing because DNA says so. Tell the DNA to keep doing this function in a specific way and it should still work no? Isn't this the type of control over DNA we are discussing?


I highly doubt we're good enough where we can literally program DNA to follow instructions.  It's not like changing a parameter in a line of computer code, because the DNA code itself is still several levels removed from the phenotype.  What we can do is isolate genes that are (probably) related to certain traits, and place them in the right place in the person's genome.  Once it's there it might be expressed in the form of certain proteins that it encodes, but those proteins might not interact with the rest of the body chemistry the way you anticipate.

In any case, there probably are genes that make someone grow past the age of puberty, but this usually causes problems -- primarily because the person's joints and ligaments can't support all that extra weight.  If you were to infect someone with the acromegaly gene, you'd also have to follow up with a second treatment later on to remove it.  In that case, it would be a lot simpler (not to mention cheaper) just to put the patient on a HGH regimen.

TL;DR: you can't just set growth.turnoff=35; you have to find some who already has a gene that says growth.turnoff=35, and be pretty sure that that's what the gene really says.
 
2013-08-27 02:59:04 PM  
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-08-27 02:59:18 PM  

Arsten: Basically, we now have a way to disrupt or tweak genes that are being actively used by the body. We can probably disrupt things like cancers and other broken gene disorders that are actively expressed and that would be it.


To reiterate from one of my posts above we do NOT have a tool that allows us to effectively manipulate the DNA of cells in a living organism. While TALENs do get used in living organisms (Zebrafish) for research purposes that is because we can inject them in to embryos. That and and we can work with hundreds to thousands of fish at a time, which helps when it isn't effective 100% of the time. This is not something even remotely able to inject into a person for any sort of large scale work. You might be able to do something similar to how we are currently doing gene therapy where you work on isolated cells or do very specific injections into tissues where it is possible (eyes). Even then it would be way less practical in almost all circumstances when compared to the viral vectors we currently use.
 
2013-08-27 02:59:40 PM  

BeesNuts: But yeah, to suggest that because those components are immortal, things that are made of them are also immortal


I never said that. I'm curious as to how you can have a biological age when clearly, the atoms themselves do not have an age. And even if protons have a half-life, I'll take the 10^32 years, please.

Are you people so simple-minded I have to spell. everything. out. word. by. tedious. word?

Atoms do not have an age. They are interchangeable. Are you seriously telling me that you could tell if a single carbon atom came from my middle-aged ass or a baby?

Really?

Please describe these tests, and what you are measuring. Seems it should be simple enough?

Put one carbon atom in a Penning trap, an atom you claim is "40 years old", and another you claim is "1 year old". Make it in a fusor if it tickles you.

Now describe what real physical and chemical tests you can do to the atom to determine this "age"?

You can't. There is no such thing. Whatever "biological age" is, it's certainly not a property of single atoms.

And yes, I do claim that if atoms do not have a biological age, well, the limits to biological age don't come from the atoms themselves, but the patterns.

Putting a colony on Mars, the limits very much come from the atoms. Limits on energy you can get in a practical propellant, limits of material strength, limits on engineering, etc... ad nauseam.

So riddle me this: how can two thirty year old humans make a zero year old baby, on a planet 4 billion years old in a universe 14 billion years old?

Do they go to the new atom factory?

Do plants use fusion to make new carbon atoms?

Oh do tell, I'm on tenterhooks over here.
 
2013-08-27 03:03:10 PM  
mutantville.com
 
2013-08-27 03:19:46 PM  

entropic_existence: To reiterate from one of my posts above we do NOT have a tool that allows us to effectively manipulate the DNA of cells in a living organism. While TALENs do get used in living organisms (Zebrafish) for research purposes that is because we can inject them in to embryos. That and and we can work with hundreds to thousands of fish at a time, which helps when it isn't effective 100% of the time. This is not something even remotely able to inject into a person for any sort of large scale work. You might be able to do something similar to how we are currently doing gene therapy where you work on isolated cells or do very specific injections into tissues where it is possible (eyes). Even then it would be way less practical in almost all circumstances when compared to the viral vectors we currently use.


What about EMS recombination?
 
2013-08-27 03:21:20 PM  

Quantum Apostrophe: BeesNuts: But yeah, to suggest that because those components are immortal, things that are made of them are also immortal

I never said that. I'm curious as to how you can have a biological age when clearly, the atoms themselves do not have an age. And even if protons have a half-life, I'll take the 10^32 years, please.


I never said you did.  I asked the one responding to you if he had seen you suggest that argument, because it sounded ridiculous.

I have a biological age because we're made of cells that are then made of those immortal particles.  Those cells are complicated, and there's this thing called Entropy.

How old is the earth?  The sun?  The atoms may have come from beyond the reach of time, but there was a point in time, as experienced by humankind, BEFORE there was a sun and AFTER there was a sun.  You're so far outside the realm of science that you shouldn't be trying to talk scienc-y.  Stick to philosophical discussion about the nature of time or something.  You won't sound so silly.
 
2013-08-27 03:23:28 PM  

Quantum Apostrophe: cman: Quantum Apostrophe: Except for living longer. That's always bad because atoms have an age.

You do realize that every seven years you are pretty much an entirely different person, right?

Everything on a cellular level changes. You have the same memories, but that is about it

I know. You have to realize most of my posts are from the point of view of the kind of "arguments" I get from Space Nutters, ie nothing of substance.

Atoms are, well, atoms, they're all the same and certainly don't have a sense of time at the biological scale. I see no fundamental limit to extending our lifespan. There may be plenty of others, but atoms becoming slow and middle-aged ain't one of them.


In the vacuum of space, no one can hear you skeet!

/skeet, skeet, SKEET!
/skeet
 
2013-08-27 03:27:45 PM  

JohnnyRebel88: piperTom: Researchers are 6'4" (193 cm)?!?  Why so tall?  They'll bump their heads on stuff.  Better to be 5'10" (177cm).

Probably WWE fans.  5'10" is pretty close to the ideal size, however I played basketball and at the time I wished I had another 2-4 inches. That's the difference between scholorship and a paying for school.




Skeelo would agree
 
2013-08-27 03:31:28 PM  

Quantum Apostrophe: And yes, I do claim that if atoms do not have a biological age, well, the limits to biological age don't come from the atoms themselves, but the patterns.

Putting a colony on Mars, the limits very much come from the atoms. Limits on energy you can get in a practical propellant, limits of material strength, limits on engineering, etc... ad nauseam.

So riddle me this: how can two thirty year old humans make a zero year old baby, on a planet 4 billion years old in a universe 14 billion years old?
Do they go to the new atom factory?
Do plants use fusion to make new carbon atoms?
Oh do tell, I'm on tenterhooks over here.


I'm not sure what procreation has to do with immortality.  Are you now saying that because people can have kids by reorganizing atoms from food we eat into energy and mass that we can reverse the aging process by ... reorganizing atoms from food we eat into energy and mass?

You're saying too many disparate things.  At its base, your claim seems to be that because subatomic particles are 'immortal' and "ageless", aging isn't a function of the atoms but their organization.  Which ... means absolutely god damned nothing.  Yeah, nobody argues that.

Can you explain how we're going to prevent the trillions of reorganizations our bodies go through every day from leaving the legacy of imperfect reorganizations that leads inevitably to your death?
 
2013-08-27 03:37:12 PM  

GRCooper: entropic_existence: To reiterate from one of my posts above we do NOT have a tool that allows us to effectively manipulate the DNA of cells in a living organism. While TALENs do get used in living organisms (Zebrafish) for research purposes that is because we can inject them in to embryos. That and and we can work with hundreds to thousands of fish at a time, which helps when it isn't effective 100% of the time. This is not something even remotely able to inject into a person for any sort of large scale work. You might be able to do something similar to how we are currently doing gene therapy where you work on isolated cells or do very specific injections into tissues where it is possible (eyes). Even then it would be way less practical in almost all circumstances when compared to the viral vectors we currently use.

What about EMS recombination?


We've already tried it, Roy.

i1.creativecow.net
 
2013-08-27 03:38:07 PM  

BeesNuts: Quantum Apostrophe: And yes, I do claim that if atoms do not have a biological age, well, the limits to biological age don't come from the atoms themselves, but the patterns.

Putting a colony on Mars, the limits very much come from the atoms. Limits on energy you can get in a practical propellant, limits of material strength, limits on engineering, etc... ad nauseam.

So riddle me this: how can two thirty year old humans make a zero year old baby, on a planet 4 billion years old in a universe 14 billion years old?
Do they go to the new atom factory?
Do plants use fusion to make new carbon atoms?
Oh do tell, I'm on tenterhooks over here.

I'm not sure what procreation has to do with immortality.  Are you now saying that because people can have kids by reorganizing atoms from food we eat into energy and mass that we can reverse the aging process by ... reorganizing atoms from food we eat into energy and mass?

You're saying too many disparate things.  At its base, your claim seems to be that because subatomic particles are 'immortal' and "ageless", aging isn't a function of the atoms but their organization.  Which ... means absolutely god damned nothing.  Yeah, nobody argues that.

Can you explain how we're going to prevent the trillions of reorganizations our bodies go through every day from leaving the legacy of imperfect reorganizations that leads inevitably to your death?


Lay off the  LSD, fellas.  It a farking Tuesday afternoon, for God sake.
 
2013-08-27 03:39:30 PM  

BeesNuts: I have a biological age because we're made of cells that are then made of those immortal particles. Those cells are complicated, and there's this thing called Entropy.


There's this thing called the Sun. It converts 4 million tons of mass to energy per second. I think we're OK. Unless you are saying something else.

I mean, it's just this thin shell of atoms continuously cycling through the entire biosphere with energy from the Sun, right?

BeesNuts: You're so far outside the realm of science


How so? You skipped a lot of very simple challenges, seems to me. If you can accept that atoms don't have an age in the biological sense, can you find the limits to a lifespan?

It would be in the pattern the atoms make.

Are you saying we'll never, ever figure out a PATTERN?

All I'm saying is we evolved. Now we should engineer our lifespan, like we've engineered every single other thing in our Western life. So what?

So we'll never be "immortal". Fine. I'll take 50000 years then. So what?

You want to go outside the realm of science? Go talk to the people who invoke non-existent technologies as if they're a done deal, then extrapolate the next steps!

"It's fairly easy to make anti-matter rocket engines, so clearly we'll colonize Andromeda."


Just because Simon Van Der Meer made an anti-proton storage system that could store 12 anti-protons at some huge expense, nothing else follows from that.

We have no anti-matter rockets. There won't be a Moon colony. etc

It's simple.

1) There is no fundamental physical limit to extending our life. It's not the age of atoms, and it's not energy. Atoms don't have an age, and energy comes from the Sun. All else is social details.
2) There are plenty of real physical limits in the way of manned space exploration, let alone the colony fantasies. Never mind all the social limits like money.

There. Still outside the realm of science for your delicate sensibilities?

Sheeezus keerist.
 
2013-08-27 03:44:10 PM  

GRCooper: What about EMS recombination?


Unfortunately Blade Runner makes for a poor genetics textbook.
 
2013-08-27 03:47:19 PM  

Somaticasual: Arsten: Right now, just replacing DNA could only disrupt actively read and expressed sites. In order to grow people to 6'4" you'd have to not only change the genes but actually express the genes in the proper order to cannibalize existing tissue and then rebuild In the target spec (and it would probably hurt to boot)

This. The reason making someone taller would be a complicated ordeal is that - you can't just change the skeletal height. You also have to adjust a variety of internal organs and even the length of veins/etc to match your additional height. You might even need a slightly larger heart/etc to avoid circulatory issues.


i.dailymail.co.uk

It's possible.  But to get to six-four, you would need to be six-one to begin with -- makes it kinda moot. To the guy who's 5' 3", it might make all the difference. Hopefully he would have some cash left over for his head doctor.
 
2013-08-27 03:47:43 PM  

arbitterm: Great, designer children. Whole generations that look almost identical because their parents followed the current fads in "MetroGenetics"


They would have to go to great lengths to achieve individuality.
pearlsofgeekdom.com

Or it could be a good thing!
grantgould.com

Unless this happens.
frogpants.com

If you're Gen X and don't recognize what shows these pics came from, I pity you.
 
2013-08-27 03:48:29 PM  

Somaticasual: Arsten: Right now, just replacing DNA could only disrupt actively read and expressed sites. In order to grow people to 6'4" you'd have to not only change the genes but actually express the genes in the proper order to cannibalize existing tissue and then rebuild In the target spec (and it would probably hurt to boot)

This. The reason making someone taller would be a complicated ordeal is that - you can't just change the skeletal height. You also have to adjust a variety of internal organs and even the length of veins/etc to match your additional height. You might even need a slightly larger heart/etc to avoid circulatory issues.


The epiphyseal plates shut after a certain age, but why couldn't we just reboot the chondrocytes? They grew once from a single cell after all.

So much to explore! Such complexity! Such amazing patterns!

Good thing our computers are getting better, eh?

Too bad all the doom and gloom sci-fi like the Outer Limits was all about how "evil" it is to "play god".

If the biological sciences had the same PR as NASA did in the '60s, you wouldn't need me...
 
2013-08-27 03:53:22 PM  

Quantum Apostrophe: you ... need me...


04.images.fireden.net
 
2013-08-27 03:56:38 PM  

Magorn: Felgraf: Arkanaut: I don't think editing DNA is going to do much for your looks after you reach adulthood.

I dunno. If we're able to inject a person with something that goes, like, "If you see this sequence, delete and replace with X", you could probably fix some diseases that are 'caused' by your body producing farked up proteins/not producing the right proteins.

Or basically wipe out a lot of cancers.

Obviously that's still a ways away, I suspect.

we do that already with gene therapy, or at least so I understand the process, and IIRC we basically do a completely replacement of all the cells in our body about every 7 years or so, so IF you were able to infect every cell in your body with new DNA code that turned on or off certain genes, then it seems like yes, gradually you would be "reformed in favor of your new matrix" so to speak....thought he transition could be VERY weird....


So actual science-talking person want to explain to me why I'm an idiot now?


You're posing on FARK.  Hey, I'm in good company now!
 
2013-08-27 03:59:09 PM  
We're not there yet?!

Then how do you explain this:

img29.imageshack.us
 
2013-08-27 03:59:58 PM  

entropic_existence: Arsten: Basically, we now have a way to disrupt or tweak genes that are being actively used by the body. We can probably disrupt things like cancers and other broken gene disorders that are actively expressed and that would be it.

To reiterate from one of my posts above we do NOT have a tool that allows us to effectively manipulate the DNA of cells in a living organism. While TALENs do get used in living organisms (Zebrafish) for research purposes that is because we can inject them in to embryos. That and and we can work with hundreds to thousands of fish at a time, which helps when it isn't effective 100% of the time. This is not something even remotely able to inject into a person for any sort of large scale work. You might be able to do something similar to how we are currently doing gene therapy where you work on isolated cells or do very specific injections into tissues where it is possible (eyes). Even then it would be way less practical in almost all circumstances when compared to the viral vectors we currently use.


You're right. I extrapolated to a future possible position while actively saying "Now". Do'h.
 
2013-08-27 04:17:44 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: We're not there yet?!

Then how do you explain this:

[402x604 from http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/8003/jymx.jpg image 402x604]


Easy.  Photoshop.
 
2013-08-27 04:23:28 PM  
Fark the chin and great hair, I'd be happy if they could use this to conveniently edit out the code bugs that are generally causing occasional nasty hiccups in DNA repair mechanisms on my dad's side and the rather serious immune system bugs on my maternal side of the family that tend to cause the systems for "attack invading viruses" to go "attack insulin" instead. :D

(Ah, fun with probable Lynch syndrome on one side of the family and probable hereditary type 1.5 (aka "slow adult-onset autoimmune") diabetes on the other.  As I put it to the doc when I got fixed, "My genetic code is presently a DNA Superfund site as is.  You SERIOUSLY think I want to pass that on?")
 
2013-08-27 04:33:37 PM  
Ok, I realize I am setting myself up for ridicule here, but I am exactly 6'4", full head of hair, blue eyes, athletic and somewhat of a good jawline.  So go ahead, joke away.

i.imgur.com

i.imgur.com


And one, you know, for scale:

i.imgur.com
 
2013-08-27 04:37:26 PM  

Quantum Apostrophe: If the biological sciences had the same PR as NASA did in the '60s, you wouldn't need me...


Genetics gets lots of money, although like ALL of the sciences it could use more. The major reason we can;t go full steam ahead on developing radical human genetic technologies is because if we fark up, and we will, it will result in people who die or develop nasty forms of cancer. So we go slow, and most of what we develop is developed towards curing disease instead of "designer" enhancements. Where you will see adoption of designer genetics first will primarily be in agriculture, because it is a hell of a lot easier to get ethics approval to make bigger, meatier cows with better fat deposition characteristics.

Arsten: You're right. I extrapolated to a future possible position while actively saying "Now". Do'h.


Probably TALENs or their direct derivatives will never be the right tool. But some hybrid form of viral-delivery system, perhaps with TALEN or CRISPR (a similar system) like components will. Of course it would be way easier to do genetic engineering at the egg/sperm stage, or early embryonic at the very least, rather than in adults. But we can currently do rudimentary gene therapy in the eyes of adults for instance, so certain problems/tissues will always be more amenable.
 
2013-08-27 04:38:27 PM  

docmattic: Easy. Photoshop.


img543.imageshack.us
img211.imageshack.us
img801.imageshack.us


any other guesses?
 
2013-08-27 04:51:06 PM  

Somaticasual: I give it 4 years before there's a penis size enhancement pill based on these findings..




So, no more Corvettes?
 
2013-08-27 04:52:00 PM  

ggecko: Ok, I realize I am setting myself up for ridicule here, but I am exactly 6'4", full head of hair, blue eyes, athletic and somewhat of a good jawline.  So go ahead, joke away.

[850x1276 from http://i.imgur.com/ZYc5D.jpg image 850x1276]

[850x1278 from http://i.imgur.com/B4c6K.jpg image 850x1278]


And one, you know, for scale:

[850x1274 from http://i.imgur.com/FsDR97p.jpg image 850x1274]


Scott Perri?
 
2013-08-27 04:54:58 PM  

Felgraf: fireclown: Shame his kid was such a jerkass.

He was honestly kind of a prick too.


Who's the bigger jerkass: the jerkass or the jerkass that made him?
 
2013-08-27 05:07:14 PM  
Gattaca is finally upon us.  Great.  As a short, fat and non-genius type of person, I expect when this fully hits that I'll be turned into Soylent Green.

/it's people!
 
2013-08-27 05:19:36 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: docmattic: Easy. Photoshop.

any other guesses?


Sorry, I'm gonna need more data in order to come to a decision

/heh heh, heh heh, he said "come"
//nice shthingies
///shuddup Beavis
 
2013-08-27 05:46:26 PM  

ggecko: Ok, I realize I am setting myself up for ridicule here, but I am exactly 6'4", full head of hair, blue eyes, athletic and somewhat of a good jawline.  So go ahead, joke away.

[850x1276 from http://i.imgur.com/ZYc5D.jpg image 850x1276]

[850x1278 from http://i.imgur.com/B4c6K.jpg image 850x1278]


And one, you know, for scale:

[850x1274 from http://i.imgur.com/FsDR97p.jpg image 850x1274]


Could you believe it wasn't butter!?!

/sorry, had to
 
2013-08-27 05:47:17 PM  

GRCooper: The Stealth Hippopotamus: docmattic: Easy. Photoshop.

any other guesses?

Sorry, I'm gonna need more data in order to come to a decision

/heh heh, heh heh, he said "come"
//nice shthingies
///shuddup Beavis


'cause you asked

img809.imageshack.us
img542.imageshack.us
img850.imageshack.us
admittedly she went though a period where her eyebrow got a little weird, but I'm not that picky
 
2013-08-27 05:58:39 PM  

ggecko: Ok, I realize I am setting myself up for ridicule here, but I am exactly 6'4", full head of hair, blue eyes, athletic and somewhat of a good jawline.  So go ahead, joke away.

[850x1276 from http://i.imgur.com/ZYc5D.jpg image 850x1276]

[850x1278 from http://i.imgur.com/B4c6K.jpg image 850x1278]


And one, you know, for scale:

[850x1274 from http://i.imgur.com/FsDR97p.jpg image 850x1274]


Why would you post these images?
 
2013-08-27 06:32:10 PM  

DrRatchet: [300x141 from http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cf/Plasmid_(engl ish).svg/300px-Plasmid_(english).svg.png image 300x141]

So, Plasmids. We're talking about Plasmids here, right?


Anyway, I'm looking forward to evolving, today!


Damn Splicers.
 
2013-08-27 06:32:46 PM  

SonOfSpam: That gag makes more sense with Data instead of Worf, what with Data's literalness.


I thought about that, but decided that Data's ethical subroutine wouldn't allow him to just straight up murder someone, even if ordered to do so.  I was going more for Worf intentionally misinterpreting.
 
2013-08-27 06:57:03 PM  
Holy fark! Did anyone catch that the dude who essentially made this new find possible was named Andrew Mercer. "For this he adapted a "directed evolution" technique developed last year by Andrew C. Mercer, who at the time was a research associate in the Barbas laboratory."

That's somewhat coincidental...
 
2013-08-27 07:10:43 PM  
Ok, no more Heinlein references without a blatant explanation.
 
2013-08-27 07:35:00 PM  

Corbow6: Holy fark! Did anyone catch that the dude who essentially made this new find possible was named Andrew Mercer. "For this he adapted a "directed evolution" technique developed last year by Andrew C. Mercer, who at the time was a research associate in the Barbas laboratory."

That's somewhat coincidental...


Oh yeah, Prototype. Didn't the first one have some kind of story about a particularly brooding hoodie?
 
2013-08-27 07:58:38 PM  

Mentalpatient87: Corbow6: Holy fark! Did anyone catch that the dude who essentially made this new find possible was named Andrew Mercer. "For this he adapted a "directed evolution" technique developed last year by Andrew C. Mercer, who at the time was a research associate in the Barbas laboratory."

That's somewhat coincidental...

Oh yeah, Prototype. Didn't the first one have some kind of story about a particularly brooding hoodie?


florida.arrests.org
Andrew Mercer
http://florida.arrests.org/Arrests/Andrew_Mercer_2130827/
 
2013-08-27 08:09:37 PM  

Oldiron_79: Yeah I dont know that I like this, I mean it cheapens my gawd given tallness, blue eyes and large cawk. I mean about the only thing I have that most would reccomend changing is the gingervitis.


Gingervitis? As if you could even get near a woman with that. That shiat is incredibly contagious.

i305.photobucket.com

*shudder*
 
2013-08-27 09:29:54 PM  

cryinoutloud: Oldiron_79: Yeah I dont know that I like this, I mean it cheapens my gawd given tallness, blue eyes and large cawk. I mean about the only thing I have that most would reccomend changing is the gingervitis.

Gingervitis? As if you could even get near a woman with that. That shiat is incredibly contagious.

[640x429 from http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn204/zombiecarter/CHUCKLES/redhead s.jpg image 640x429]

*shudder*


Looks like someone needs to dump some calamine lotion on that. Looks irritated
 
2013-08-27 11:33:10 PM  
Gattaca is coming...
 
2013-08-28 10:52:03 AM  

ggecko: Ok, I realize I am setting myself up for ridicule here, but I am exactly 6'4", full head of hair, blue eyes, athletic and somewhat of a good jawline.  So go ahead, joke away.

[850x1276 from http://i.imgur.com/ZYc5D.jpg image 850x1276]

[850x1278 from http://i.imgur.com/B4c6K.jpg image 850x1278]


And one, you know, for scale:

[850x1274 from http://i.imgur.com/FsDR97p.jpg image 850x1274]


And if I recall correctly from a previous thread, you fundraise for an animal rescue?  You single?  If not, can I have some DNA to clone you? :)
 
2013-08-28 02:10:58 PM  

Quantum Apostrophe: Are you saying we'll never, ever figure out a PATTERN?

All I'm saying is we evolved. Now we should engineer our lifespan, like we've engineered every single other thing in our Western life. So what?

So we'll never be "immortal". Fine. I'll take 50000 years then. So what?


I'm saying there isn't a pattern to the degredation of biological life.  We can treat the symptoms of aging, up to and including the improvement of RNA replication inaccuracies, I'm sure.  And yeah, we can push the lifespan out pretty damned far.  We can replace organs that fail, and we're starting to grow them from people's own stem cells.  But we're fighting an implacable foe in aging.  The computer you'd need to monitor all the shiat happening in one persons body would be more powerful than anything we have today.  And everybody is different.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the sun though, which is why I still think you're TimeCube crazy.
 
2013-08-28 04:29:23 PM  
I'll take a lifetime supply of the pill that means I don't have to shave my face ever again TYVM.
 
2013-08-28 05:39:12 PM  

entropic_existence: Quantum Apostrophe: If the biological sciences had the same PR as NASA did in the '60s, you wouldn't need me...

Genetics gets lots of money, although like ALL of the sciences it could use more. The major reason we can;t go full steam ahead on developing radical human genetic technologies is because if we fark up, and we will, it will result in people who die or develop nasty forms of cancer. So we go slow, and most of what we develop is developed towards curing disease instead of "designer" enhancements. Where you will see adoption of designer genetics first will primarily be in agriculture, because it is a hell of a lot easier to get ethics approval to make bigger, meatier cows with better fat deposition characteristics.

Arsten: You're right. I extrapolated to a future possible position while actively saying "Now". Do'h.

Probably TALENs or their direct derivatives will never be the right tool. But some hybrid form of viral-delivery system, perhaps with TALEN or CRISPR (a similar system) like components will. Of course it would be way easier to do genetic engineering at the egg/sperm stage, or early embryonic at the very least, rather than in adults. But we can currently do rudimentary gene therapy in the eyes of adults for instance, so certain problems/tissues will always be more amenable.


And even then, you wouldn't believe the kind of crap we have to put up with over in agriculture. But yeah, that's the reason why I'm not in human genetics, and instead skipped over to making plants grow. Nobody really complains when you kill a few hundred test subjects.
 
Displayed 158 of 158 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report