• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Scientists Create First Living Organism With 'Artificial' DNA

ChezC3 said:
Change is inevitable.

Playing around with things you can't possibly hope to fully understand?

Stupid.
Click to expand...
What other way is there to approach and possibly grasp more complete understanding?
 
beefheart said:
No, it shouldn't. Science is what makes the world better, it actually does positive things.
Click to expand...
Science is a double-edged blade - it makes things better, but at the same time gives idiots more tools to **** **** up.
 
beefheart said:
Yeah, how dare they try to cure diseases and improve the quality of life of humans.

Beats mumbling prayers that do nothing.

Ever see a faith healer grow back an amputated limb?
Click to expand...
I'd actually be interested in scientific research into how "faith healing" works, and to what degree. I suspect a large portion of it relies on belief from the person being "healed".

Belief is a powerful force, literally - something like the placebo effect?

Or...something like that.
 
The Mark said:
I'd actually be interested in scientific research into how "faith healing" works, and to what degree. I suspect a large portion of it relies on belief from the person being "healed".

Belief is a powerful force, literally - something like the placebo effect?

Or...something like that.
Click to expand...

It doesn't. They only "treat" people that have things you can't see, so you can say "your cancer is gone!" and no one is the wiser. But, if I am missing an arm, and they grow it back for me on stage, that would be an actual healing, except, it is never ever happened, because god hates amputees.
 
beefheart said:
It doesn't. They only "treat" people that have things you can't see, so you can say "your cancer is gone!" and no one is the wiser. But, if I am missing an arm, and they grow it back for me on stage, that would be an actual healing, except, it is never ever happened, because god hates amputees.
Click to expand...
I was thinking more subtle things - stuff that, if the patient believes, their body could actually help heal with the urging of their mind - kinda like the placebo effect?

Growing an arm back I doubt anyone really believes could happen without some kind of science being involved (science fiction really, at this point), and besides, that's outside ( I think) the capabilities of the mind/body combo to work on. Thus far.
 
Last edited:
The Mark said:
I was thinking more subtle things - stuff that, if the patient believes, their body could actually help heal with the urging of their mind - kinda like the placebo effect?

Growing an arm back I doubt anyone really believes could happen without some kind of science being involved (science fiction really, at this point), and besides, that's outside ( I think) the capabilities of the mind/body combo to work on. Thus far.
Click to expand...

But, the faith healers say that with god, everything is possible....with the exception of any thing real like growing back an arm.
 
beefheart said:
But, the faith healers say that with god, everything is possible....with the exception of any thing real like growing back an arm.
Click to expand...
I don't give a damn what they say.

I'm talking scientific testing of what they claim to be doing, in order to determine how it is accomplished, if any positive affects actually occur.
 
jamesrage said:
It could come with disastrous side effects, used to create new diseases, bioweapons and all sorts of horrible ****.
Click to expand...

The same could be said for a great deal of scientific advancement throughout the centuries
 
The Mark said:
I don't give a damn what they say.

I'm talking scientific testing of what they claim to be doing, in order to determine how it is accomplished, if any positive affects actually occur.
Click to expand...

The problem is one of you is thinking with a questioning, scientific mind and the other with that of a fervent ideological zealot. Rarely do zealots and reasoned thinkers come to a similar conclusion
 
jamesrage said:
It could come with disastrous side effects, used to create new diseases, bioweapons and all sorts of horrible ****.
Click to expand...

We already have the capacity to do that right now. If anything this tech would allow us to find more cures to diseases or at least find better ways to offer supportive care in diseases that have no known cure.
 
digsbe said:
We already have the capacity to do that right now. If anything this tech would allow us to find more cures to diseases or at least find better ways to offer supportive care in diseases that have no known cure.
Click to expand...

I would seriously do a little tap dance if they'd figure out in the next 25 to 50 years how to at least better combat cancer and how to get cells to not go into the stage of the aging process where I believe they start to break down.
 
Zyphlin said:
I would seriously do a little tap dance if they'd figure out in the next 25 to 50 years how to at least better combat cancer and how to get cells to not go into the stage of the aging process where I believe they start to break down.
Click to expand...

The problem with cancer is that not any 2 cancers are the same. Sadly, there will never be a miracle cure to all cancers.

However some of the innovation is amazing right now. I worked in a lab that published a paper regarding angiogenesis (the process by which new blood vessels form) formation in tumors and identifying new molecular pathways that cancer cells might use to signal for this. We've looked at anti-angiogenesis therapy before, but the problem is that there is more than 1 pathway to signal for blood vessel growth and we haven't recognized all of them yet or created the perfect drug cocktail that can effectively inhibit angiogenesis yet. The theory is that if we can stop angiogenesis we can halt or arrest solid tumor growth (not the same for non-solid tumor cancers). Adults don't really need additional blood vessel growth and in cancer tumors if they don't get that blood supply the tumor cannot grow beyond a small size of about 2mm I believe.

What's also really cool is new therapies identifying sell surface proteins that differ from normal cells and developing vaccines around those proteins to inject into patients to help mass a larger immune response against cancers. There is also the possibility of using viruses to deliver chemo or infect only cancer cells. HIV works most often by binding to CD4+ cells that express that cell surface marker (primarily T-cells). In theory, we could run an assay on a cancer cell to find up-regulated or abnormal surface proteins and develop a virus that attaches only to that protein to infect only those cells and kill them in mass without having much systemic effects. If chemo is put into the virus it provides a convenient delivery system that doesn't pose all the risks that current systemic chemo has. This is all years down the line though with some of it being more theoretical. I do think in the next 25-50 years that we will have massive gains. One reason is we are beginning to look at cancers individually now with individual genetics instead of approaches treating each patient's cancer similarly as if there aren't many variations (like treating all leukemia the same or all breast cancers the same). I'll stop, because I could go on and on since this is my area of passion, but I do think exciting things are coming.
 
clownboy said:
Read a book back in the late 60s that explained why not. I believe it was by Desmond Morris but I could be remembering that wrong. What really stuck with me over the years is the truth of it. The author's premise was that we had reached a point where technological change had outpaced our society's ability to cope with (live with). And that this gulf between tech and understanding of that tech would greatly widen in upcoming decades until a fracture point was reached or an extinction level disaster was created by the gulf.
Click to expand...

That was said about the atomic bomb too and numerous other discoveries all through history. It matters not, as our minds are unstoppable. Progress will always continue.
 
Zyphlin said:
I would seriously do a little tap dance if they'd figure out in the next 25 to 50 years how to at least better combat cancer and how to get cells to not go into the stage of the aging process where I believe they start to break down.
Click to expand...

I get why you feel that way, obviously, but I think people who are so enthusiastic about this sort of thing are thinking too much about themselves and not about the general impact on society. What do you think would happen if people could suddenly live forever? You can't very well have people making babies at their current pace, not unless only certain people would be allowed this privilege of radically extended lifespans.
 
beefheart said:
Yeah, how dare they try to cure diseases and improve the quality of life of humans.

Beats mumbling prayers that do nothing.

Ever see a faith healer grow back an amputated limb?
Click to expand...

No, but I've seen a poster present a false dichotomy...:shock:
 
Removable Mind said:
Well, I think if we don't wipe ourselves out that via technology, humans will be as close to immortality as possible. And think of it. It was done by humans...just humans. :shock: I love it!
Click to expand...



And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
Genesis 11:6
 
Oftencold said:

And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
Genesis 11:6
Click to expand...

Yes, because science gives a **** that your 2,000 year old book has some misgivings about science. We're not going to halt scientific progress and replace it with ignorance.

You keep reading your bible and we'll keep improving the world. When you get cancer don't come crying to science claiming now you want the benefits of this research.
 
Last edited:
cloned meet for dinner.
 
The Mark said:
What other way is there to approach and possibly grasp more complete understanding?
Click to expand...

Currently scientists can't make sense of all the data coming in from genomes sequenced in our own DNA and we still have some 10% left to go. Because 85-95% of our DNA appears to be useless(much like our appendix was thought to be until recently, a study has been put up for review showing that it is a storage container of sorts for bacteria for our stomachs to draw from kind of like a reset when it has been attacked by food borne illnesses or other viruses.) that doesn't mean it is and it would be a prudent and wise course of action to thoroughly get a grasp on that before you go playing connect the chromosomes that you synthetically developed.
 
digsbe said:
Why? It's fascinating and could have potential benefits when it comes to creating biologics and research.
Click to expand...

Yeah there is no reason to discourage innovation.... like ever...



Tim-
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Yes, because science gives a **** that your 2,000 year old book has some misgivings about science. We're not going to halt scientific progress and replace it with ignorance.

You keep reading your bible and we'll keep improving the world. When you get cancer don't come crying to science claiming now you want the benefits of this research.
Click to expand...
Hysterics much?

If you'll read with a little more attention, and a little less spleen, you'll see that the passage states that Man can do just about anything he imagines.

You see how different the world looks when we're calm, and respectful of others?

And that section of the Book is closer to 3000 years old.

You might be interested to know, also that a fully integrated personality is quite capable of reading both the Bible, and a tome on recent theories in physics.

Further, Science is a tool for the pursuit of knowledge. It has not the slightest interest in "improving the world" and will object not at all, any more than would Algebra if it is employed to sterilize the world. Also, yet again, you confuse Technology and Science, which are two different things. To aid you in achieving clarity, you should be wary of any article which says that Science accomplished something rather that Science or people employing Science discovered something. You see?

Science never built a machine, improved a crop or developed a cure. Certainly, knowledge gained through the use of Science aided the inverters, investors, technologists, industrialists and so forth who created such things through the employment of such things as Technologically based projects, industrialization, and commerce. Even kooks like Tesla and had their place.

Carry on.
 
Oftencold said:
Hysterics much?

If you'll read with a little more attention, and a little less spleen, you'll see that the passage states that Man can do just about anything he imagines.

You see how different the world looks when we're calm, and respectful of others?

And that section of the Book is closer to 3000 years old.

You might be interested to know, also that a fully integrated personality is quite capable of reading both the Bible, and a tome on recent theories in physics.

Further, Science is a tool for the pursuit of knowledge. It has not the slightest interest in "improving the world" and will object not at all, any more than would Algebra if it is employed to sterilize the world. Also, yet again, you confuse Technology and Science, which are two different things. To aid you in achieving clarity, you should be wary of any article which says that Science accomplished something rather that Science or people employing Science discovered something. You see?

Science never built a machine, improved a crop or developed a cure. Certainly, knowledge gained through the use of Science aided the inverters, investors, technologists, industrialists and so forth who created such things through the employment of such things as Technologically based projects, industrialization, and commerce. Even kooks like Tesla and had their place.

Carry on.
Click to expand...

You posted that idiotic verse because you wanted to imply that this would anger God and he'd bring his wrath down on us like he supposedly did with the tower of babel. It's pure anti-science bull****.

Keep living in ignorance. Carry on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom