We seem to value your opinions almost as much as you value ours.
There is no way to prove either side, so further argument is quite
pointless. Kinda like religion.
--- In SkunkworksAMA_at_y..., Saous_at_A... wrote:
> 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 Sun Oct 20 2002 - 02:42:27 CDT