PatekPhilippe
Senior Member
Fucking GATTICA!!!!!!!!!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What is the evidence for evolution?
DNA - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Allele - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Genetic engineering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Heritability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Prove that they don't follow the scientific method.
Eugenics is an umbrella term applying to the application of a number of fields, much as 'physics' actually refers to a number of fields, from astronomical physics to classical relativity, to quantum mechanics.
But you've gone 13 pages without overcoming your functional illiteracy; why expect you to change now?
You've already admitted that you'd, in all likelihood, come crawling to he doors of the eugenicists when it's your child's well-being we're dealing with.
That you're stupid enough that you can't tell a bullet from penicillin is not my problem.
Hey... what Einstein was doing was it pseudoscience before the schools started quoting him?
All quotes taken from your Britannica link cited above JB.
WOW, JB. Did you even READ your Britannica link?!?! That supported windbags assertion quite well.
the selection of desired heritable characteristics in order to improve future generations, typically in reference to humans.I would also note JB that your definition is WRONG as cited in your own article:However, it ultimately failed as a science in the 1930s and 40s, when the assumptions of eugenicists became heavily criticized and the Nazis used eugenics to support the extermination of entire races.
Eugenics = breeding. It is NOT genetics, that is a totally different aspect of controlling the human form. You seem to be operating under 2 separate definitions and are both of you are too hot headed after 13 pages to come to a simple agreement. YES to genetic engineering (what you actually support with your argument JB) and NO to eugenics, the incredible sadistic act of selective breeding. This is rather simple and I am surprised that it has come to 13 pages.A language pertaining to reproduction and eugenics developed, leading to terms such as positive eugenics, defined as promoting the proliferation of good stock, and negative eugenics, defined as prohibiting marriage and breeding between defective stock.
This is rather simple and I am surprised that it has come to 13 pages.
I tried that and it didn't work
Semantics boys.
How about the term positive gene therapy instead of positive eugenics? That gets rid of QW's bit about breading programs and culling. AND it allows for genetic choices to be made by parents.
LolIt is NOT genetics, that is a totally different aspect of controlling the human form.
Lol. YES to genetic engineering (what you actually support with your argument JB) and NO to eugenics, the incredible sadistic act of selective breeding.
Eugenics is a term that is used for breeding human beings like we breed cattle
If I am wrong, prove it.
This is rather simple and I am surprised that it has come to 13 pages.
I tried that and it didn't work
Semantics boys.
How about the term positive gene therapy instead of positive eugenics? That gets rid of QW's bit about breading programs and culling. AND it allows for genetic choices to be made by parents.
Guilty, but only because I don't see the need for the qualifier in front of gene therapy.
Where eugenics is defined for the sake of this discussion as:
The use of genetic technologies that we possess or shall come to possess to enable parents to determine what genetic traits are passed on to their children, with the stated aims and goals of eliminating genetic disease, improving the human form (eg:restoring the human ability to synthesize our own vitamin C, should it prove possible to repair the damaged pseudogene), prolonging life, and improving the quality of human life.
Eugenics is a term that is used for breeding human beings like we breed cattle
Among other things. Eugenics refers to an end more than anything else, and different eugenicists have advocated a number of policies and methods. These are broadly organized as positive and negative eugenics, as iIve explained earlier. I made clear in the OP which positive eugenic policies this thread is about and I have repeatedly torn apart a certain user for advocating negative eugenics in this thread.
Go read some history books. recommend the books by Edwin Black for starting material.If I am wrong, prove it.
You and Corndog simply ignore all facts you don't like.
I tried that and it didn't work
Guilty, but only because I don't see the need for the qualifier in front of gene therapy.
Because like anything there can be negative gene therapies. I am PRO positive gene therapies, as in the breast cancer example.
Which you will have to agree fits with the OP
Where eugenics is defined for the sake of this discussion as:
The use of genetic technologies that we possess or shall come to possess to enable parents to determine what genetic traits are passed on to their children, with the stated aims and goals of eliminating genetic disease, improving the human form (eg:restoring the human ability to synthesize our own vitamin C, should it prove possible to repair the damaged pseudogene), prolonging life, and improving the quality of human life.
Hey Allie ive asked you this two times now, what to go for a third?
question AB
If you just found out you were pregnant and that it had a sever disorder, you also had the chance to change the gene to correct the problem would you?
Would you take the choice of having a normal healthy baby or an impaired one?
Hey Allie ive asked you this two times now, what to go for a third?
question AB
If you just found out you were pregnant and that it had a sever disorder, you also had the chance to change the gene to correct the problem would you?
Would you take the choice of having a normal healthy baby or an impaired one?
I don't split hairs when it comes to eugenics.
Eugenics, i.e., forced sterilizations (or encouraged, or rewarded sterilization), abortion, selective breeding, funded and supported by the state, I will never in a support.
I would not abort an impaired baby. I'd love to know what procedure corrects genes when you're pregnant. As far as I know, that doesn't happen and isn't likely to in the near future.
As far as gene research, HELL YEAH I think gene research is fascinating, and if it allows us to understand and prevent illnesses and defects that's great. That's medicine and mathematics, however. It's not eugenics. Genetic research isn't eugenics, nor is treating hereditary and genetic disorders. Unless you use aborted fetuses for the research and have some sort of goal of "doing away with" all "inferior" humans. You can't work for perfection without having a clear vision of what is "undesirable" and that is what is wrong with eugenics.
Well, if you are so obtuse as to not read your own links and then refute those links that include the encyclopedia Britannica with the always correct .jpg image then you are too idiotic to continue with.LolIt is NOT genetics, that is a totally different aspect of controlling the human form.
Google: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.
Genetics is another aspect of eugenics, and many institutions involved in genetics were a part of, or derived from, those involved in genetics. As the science improved, eugenics came to include newer methods, such as modern genetics. Eugenics is an umbrella term, you dolt.
Lol. YES to genetic engineering (what you actually support with your argument JB) and NO to eugenics, the incredible sadistic act of selective breeding.
genetic engineering is simply the newer and more effective means of achieving the same ends as selective breeding. Both are branches in the tree that is eugenics.
Loot at the words on the roots of the logo used by Cold Spring Harbor
Guilty, but only because I don't see the need for the qualifier in front of gene therapy.
Because like anything there can be negative gene therapies. I am PRO positive gene therapies, as in the breast cancer example.
Which you will have to agree fits with the OP
Where eugenics is defined for the sake of this discussion as:
The use of genetic technologies that we possess or shall come to possess to enable parents to determine what genetic traits are passed on to their children, with the stated aims and goals of eliminating genetic disease, improving the human form (eg:restoring the human ability to synthesize our own vitamin C, should it prove possible to repair the damaged pseudogene), prolonging life, and improving the quality of human life.
It fits with the OP if I ignore the fact that what the OP is describing is not eugenics, it is genetics. Eugenics is about breeding humans, period, and it is psuedo-science. The fact that JB keeps trying to claim that I am wrong, even when his own links prove I am right, more than makes that point.
Hey Allie ive asked you this two times now, what to go for a third?
question AB
If you just found out you were pregnant and that it had a sever disorder, you also had the chance to change the gene to correct the problem would you?
Would you take the choice of having a normal healthy baby or an impaired one?
I don't split hairs when it comes to eugenics.
Eugenics, i.e., forced sterilizations (or encouraged, or rewarded sterilization), abortion, selective breeding, funded and supported by the state, I will never in a support.
I would not abort an impaired baby. I'd love to know what procedure corrects genes when you're pregnant. As far as I know, that doesn't happen and isn't likely to in the near future.
As far as gene research, HELL YEAH I think gene research is fascinating, and if it allows us to understand and prevent illnesses and defects that's great. That's medicine and mathematics, however. It's not eugenics. Genetic research isn't eugenics, nor is treating hereditary and genetic disorders. Unless you use aborted fetuses for the research and have some sort of goal of "doing away with" all "inferior" humans. You can't work for perfection without having a clear vision of what is "undesirable" and that is what is wrong with eugenics.
You didn't exactly answer the question.
If you could fix the problem would you?
Let me rephrase the question.
If you KNOW you carry genitic defects. Pick what ever you want in terms of the defect, but a devestating one. And you want to become pregnant.
Would you choose to fix the problem or not?
That's medicine and mathematics
Unless you use aborted fetuses for the research and have some sort of goal of "doing away with" all "inferior" humans
You can't work for perfection without having a clear vision of what is "undesirable" and that is what is wrong with eugenics.
I think you mean semantics, not Semitics...Because like anything there can be negative gene therapies. I am PRO positive gene therapies, as in the breast cancer example.
Which you will have to agree fits with the OP
It fits with the OP if I ignore the fact that what the OP is describing is not eugenics, it is genetics. Eugenics is about breeding humans, period, and it is psuedo-science. The fact that JB keeps trying to claim that I am wrong, even when his own links prove I am right, more than makes that point.
The problem is you are ignoring the bolded part. Other then what you two went off the rails about, the OP is asking about a discussion of positive uses for gene therapy.
Again: Semitics.