Subjective vs measurements in the perception of sound quality

[regal]

Originally Posted by Crowbar

Genetic screening of zygotes can prevent lots of suffering in the future. It's already being done by individuals for their own selfish reasons, and what I'm after is that it should be regulated and controlled by international scientific organizations with the total human gene pool in mind.

The day some "international scientific organization" decides what sperm fertilizes my wife's egg is the day that our liberties are totally lost. Who wants to live in a fascists state like this ? Why the need to breed a superior race ?



When I hear "international scientific organization" I cringe. I supposed you would like to see the "independant thinking" gene removed from the gene pool. The "international scientific organization" or ISO surely doesn't want people thinking for themselves or questioning thier theories. I am sure Einstein would have never been conceived if left to this ISO.

Surely not Van Gohn he was a schizo, right?

And about 90% of the artists we listen to on our headphones would be artificially selected out because they have the "chemical dependency gene".

What about people who have nothing but "bad zygotes", I guess they have to adopt. Do they get sterilized by ISO, to prevent contamination of the gene pool?

What about the 16 year old girl that gets impregnated without your artificial selection. Force her to Kill the baby ?

Where does it end? This is why fascism failed, and should never be repeated.

Why use a headphone forum as a pulpit for disguised propaganda?

[rsaavedra]

Originally Posted by Crowbar

Yes, but that information must come from somewhere. As I've noted, the extra information for multicellular complexity is largely environmental feedback guided by the genetic differences.

I honestly think you are overestimating the impact of environmental feedback, and underplaying the role of genetic complexity and precision. Environmental conditions might not be too different for a human egg and a fungi, yet they achieve quite different end results, don't they?

I'm not a biologist, but as a computer scientist I've worked with gene regulation elucidation related algorithms. It has been discovered that there is lots of complex logic in how genes work and co-depend, how some activate some others for example. There is a lot more complexity than simply "here's this sequence, assemble this protein accordingly." Some such regulatory mechanisms have been pin pointed in some relatively "simple" multicellular life forms (e.g. sea urchin.) Yet there are way too many unknowns about those mechanisms even for those simple life forms. Way much less is known about something as complex as a mammal, in particular, a human.

[Crowbar]

Originally Posted by regal

The day some "international scientific organization" decides what sperm fertilizes my wife's egg is the day that our liberties are totally lost.

No, I'm talking about screening already fertilized cells. Don't forget that any progeny you create is going to affect the future human gene pool, so your libertarian thoughts simply do not apply since by procreating you are affecting other parts of humanity. More and more individuals are doing such screening, and my guess is that will actually have a worse effect than no screening at all, since it will tend to produce very similar people in the long run by selecting for a few specific attributes. But no intervention at all doesn't work as I explained before due to lack of any selection.

Who wants to live in a fascists state like this ? Why the need to breed a superior race ?

We don't, but as I already demonstrated, doing nothing will make the race inferior as detrimental mutations accumulate over time, without any selection to control them, and result in more suffering in the long run. It's not about improving humanity, but about at least maintaining a current level of gene quality, and at the same time an appropriate level of diversity.

I supposed you would like to see the "independant thinking" gene removed from the gene pool.

LOL! You're trying to brew more FUD against me than Microsoft about open source.

...

The rest of your post gives examples that have to deal with misapplication, and you are making assumptions as to how I think it should be implemented. I don't see where you're getting this, since I never touched the issue as to what is selected for. I simply presented an argument showing some sort of artificial selection is necessary, not how it should be applied. Of course there are many potentials for abuse, but that goes for essentially everything.

Why use a headphone forum as a pulpit for disguised propaganda?

The subject came up, and I never shy away from any topic. Propaganda is based on spin, whereas I've presented logic. If anything, you're the one using propagandistic tactics such as the Nazi comparison, and as you see others in this thread have noted the same.

Originally Posted by rsaavedra

Environment conditions might not be too different for a human egg and a fungi

Huh?!

There is a lot more complexity than simply "here's this sequence, assemble this protein accordingly."

Yes, but that information must be stored somewhere, and DNA is the primary storage mechanism (unless you're a retrovirus).

[rsaavedra]

Originally Posted by Crowbar

Huh?!

Yes I did mean that.

Yes, but that information must be stored somewhere, and DNA is the primary storage mechanism (unless you're a retrovirus).

No one has said otherwise. Precisely, I'm advocating the intricate complexity of mechanisms encoded in the whole genetic machinery of humans, over and above a simplistic interpretation of DNA being just sequences that tell how to make proteins.

[Crowbar]

Originally Posted by rsaavedra

mechanisms encoded in the whole genetic machinery of humans, over and above a simplistic interpretation of DNA being just sequences that tell how to make proteins.

No one has said otherwise.

This applies equally well to single-celled organisms; they deal with a complex environment.

[regal]

Originally Posted by rsaavedra

Yes I did mean that.


No one has said otherwise. Precisely, I'm advocating the intricate complexity of mechanisms encoded in the whole genetic machinery of humans, over and above a simplistic interpretation of DNA being just sequences that tell how to make proteins.

Exactly. Mapping the human DNA is akin to dissecting a corspe, we have to know how all the genes function in vivo before we can start playing God. Gene function at the molecular level isn't the realm of biologists, no offense but Biology is nothing compared to real physical science like chemistry and physics. The biochemists and physical chemists with their NMR and computational protein simulations will uncover more about the human genome than some biologists theorizing about the "future" of mankind. You have to learn to differentiate between the acedemia self serving B.S. in science vs the real truly emperical stuff. Science is nothing without experiementations to backup hypothesis.

[Crowbar]

Originally Posted by regal

9/10 out of ten the guy with all the answers writing books being sold at Borders is not much of a scientist rather a theorists.

Once again you're BSing. The biologists I referenced are Nobel Prize winners for their work in genetics. What's not experimental? Experiments proved Watson's idea about the structure of DNA was correct, and so on, these are not random theories without evidence, unlike your assertions. Next thing you'll claim evolution is just a theory. I have an acquaintance biochemist that founded a biotech company in my city whose main business is exactly the type of simulation you mentioned, and he agrees with my views.
In the end, nothing of what I have said here addresses my argument that without some type of selection, the gene pool will degrade over time. This is my core argument and you've not managed to touch it. All you're saying is that a solution will be very hard without abuse, but that is not an actual counterargument, for ****'s sake!

[Buggs]

Linkl

[Buggs]

Link

[tiggers]

Originally Posted by Buggs

Link

What's the big idea posting op-amp information in a thread on genetics?

you'd think this thread would be a sticky or something?