And in reply.
****For now. This is based on our current rate of discovery. A
decade from now these numbers may change dramatically. The advent of
the Quantum computer will take number crunching to a whole new level,
which are unheard of by todays standards.****
A.) Do you actually know anything about genetic information or DNA
structuring? The concept of chromosomes and the sheer process of organizing
data? It's not number crunching, it's all compiled by hand. Each individual
nucleotide must be tested, and then ordered to discover in which chromosome
it acts as which type of indicator. There is no computer program possible
for analyzing until we have a prototype graph. And since this graph has to
be done on each individual species of creature, and for every case of
disorder or imperfection, no great technological advance will prevent us from
doing it the slow and tedious way of manual discovery. Quit living in a
world of science fiction, not everything is as simple as you can make it out
to be. Learn first, speak second.
****Again, based on today's technology. As the tech tree continues
to grow, our ideas expand out with it. Think of the sheer number
manipulation and calculation of one of our recent inventions. The
Hydrogen Bomb. An impossible concept, until technology made it a
reality. The genetic experiments have already begun. I believe a
Rhesus monkey was given jellyfish genes not too long ago. The result
of that experiment was a monkey that glowed in the dark. Small
steps. . . . but that's how it starts. :) ****
B.) The hydrogen bomb was neither advanced nor intellectually stimulating.
Someone saw the Hidenburg explode and thought "weapon". There is no great
value of advanced science, simply calculated and timed chemistry. The fact
that we have a need for a hydrogen bomb only again proves our mental
simplicities for war. Also, yes, the small DNA strand to produce the
singular protein that caused jellyfish to glow was given to a monkey. But,
also. The fact remains it was an indeterminate and uncontrolled experiment.
Luck was simply with the monkey, that the protein didn't interfere with some
unknown catalyzing affect on the system that would have caused it harm. The
act of altering our protein production is risky business.
****That's the way things work. Take a theory, test it, tweak it,
test it again. Repeat until it's a workable solution. Fact is,
human test subjects are needed in order to create a useable end
product. Nothing else has the genetic makeup of the human animal. Of
course, once we have mapped the human genetic code, we can run
simulations (remember those speedy computers I mentioned)? that
will give us an idea of how it will turn out. The real results won't
happen until a real live test subject steps up to the plate and
says, " Let's do this. . . "
Those who volunteer for this "testing" understand the possible
negative outcome of the experiment. They believe, however, that the
possible rewards far outweigh the risks. . . . . ****
C.) Again, wrong, and arrogant. No simulation can be done to summarize the
entire human race. Each individual has certain encoding that differs in
strength and productivity. And, again, you know nothing of genetics.
Changing your Genetic Makeup won't suddenly change you. It will simply allow
for the production of a certain protein. That protein will then take affect.
It could never seriously change the physical makeup of an individuals body.
Not unless the procedure was conducted at the embryonic stages of
development.
- Lets wrap this up. It's both off topic and rather unnecessary. I don't
feel the need to either argue or educate anyone about their mislead beliefs.
Feel free to continue this conversation in private. But count me out.
Justin
Received on Sat Oct 19 2002 - 20:21:03 CDT