Amanda Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 When replacement is the thought rather than repair, then betrayal is the heart, not assistance. Regeneration isn't actually replacement. Healing is regeneration... yet it can only go so far. If someone has damage to their kidney or heart because part of it died... maybe if it was able to regenerate those damaged parts, that would be advantageous. Now, I do think that many illnesses are psychosomatic, and if we changed the way we thought... healing would take place. I think this could be far more effective now than we even think possible. But that's another topic.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ssel Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 Regeneration isn't actually replacement. Healing is regeneration... If you are only talking about helping the existing body, then it isn't a problem. But DNA engineering is far more involved in how to alter future generations than it is in helping existing people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 Ssel, why not help the future existing bodies, of future generations? We can NOT do much about our own DNA right now, nor its present ability for extended regeneration of body parts/organs. There may be some hope with stem cell research... but that is significantly far off, and why not have other options in the works? What about eliminating epilepsy, autism, and down's syndrome? Wouldn't that help the DNA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saviourmachine Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 If we are designed by DNA it probably did also provide us with mechanisms that protects it on bigger scales than you can see Ssel. Is our intellect not designed by it too? Our feelings of empathy etcetera? Do not even your concerns have their origins in DNA? I wouldn't be afraid that DNA can be betrayed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txviper Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 S-machine, "If we are designed by DNA......." Defined by, not designed by. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 If we are designed by DNA it probably did also provide us with mechanisms that protects it on bigger scales than you can see Ssel. Is our intellect not designed by it too? Our feelings of empathy etcetera? Do not even your concerns have their origins in DNA? I wouldn't be afraid that DNA can be betrayed. Saviourmachine, how much do you think is actually nature and how much nurture? This has been a longstanding debate hasn't it? I use to think most emotional aspects were nurture, but as time goes by... I lean more towards nature. Also, I've learned that DNA is made of RNA... so is it just polypeptide chains? What is the force behind the DNA manifestation initially? Is this a part of the abiogenesis process? What do you think about the possibility of this whole thing being formed from intent of some conscious force, or do you tend to lean towards a random act? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saviourmachine Posted January 14, 2006 Share Posted January 14, 2006 Saviourmachine, how much do you think is actually nature and how much nurture? This has been a longstanding debate hasn't it? I use to think most emotional aspects were nurture, but as time goes by... I lean more towards nature. Also, I've learned that DNA is made of RNA... so is it just polypeptide chains? What is the force behind the DNA manifestation initially? Is this a part of the abiogenesis process? What do you think about the possibility of this whole thing being formed from intent of some conscious force, or do you tend to lean towards a random act? And peptides are physical building blocks, etcetera. I never will say 'just' physical entities. It's wonderful that such complex systems can arise from "down there". I don't know where the nature/nurture border stands. Dawkin's observation that the same "technique" is at work in culture in the form of memes is interesting. In some way organisms that have lifespans so small. Compared to mountains our life is gone in 60 seconds. And still in some way its a way in which nature found a way to remain at some energetic minimum. A small oscillating line of life compared to all lifeless matter, but there we are! Regenerating and thus vigorous competitors, even for the womb that brought us forth, Gaya. Proliferation by regeneration. That's the force behind "DNA manifestation". Personally, if I would have to say what questions science will solve last, my bet would be upon the "events" of abiogenesis and consciousness. I don't know if the latter is needed to solve the former. What I certainly do not, is to lean towards a random act. Science should be able to simulate the process when they discover what chemical, thermodynamical, etc. forces have played their roles. It could have been in ponds at the surface, it could have been in caves in the ocean floor. They find really exotic microorganisms overthere. And if they are our ancestors, actually we are the exotics, living at the surface of earth where our sun is our greatest hazard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts