posted on May, 23 2015 @ 11:13 PM
... Continued from the previous page
originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Ghost147
Genetic engineering isn't necessarily preventing new mutations from occurring. It's an actual deliberate attempt to introduce new, beneficial traits
into an organism.
I realize Genetic Engineering isn't about preventing new mutations from occurring, I was responding to the claim that you asked "When an organism
alters it's own genetic material and that of other organisms - what is that?
Hint: It's not abiogenesis."
You stated in an earlier post that we were in control of Evolution when we genetically modify ourselves. However, we are not in control of Evolution
because we still reproduce with gene variation. So in my example that you quoted, I was stating the only way for us to control Evolution would be if
we were to stop the addition of new genes from the natural process within reproduction.
Adding this or that gene isn't controlling Evolution because of the natural gene variation that still exists. That production of random genetic
variation is what Evolution is. The adding another gene is simply a different action all together.
originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Ghost147
"Genetic augmentation" is not simply a prevention of new mutations as you keep stating. Not sure where you are getting that idea from.
Once again, you're misinterpreting what I am attempting to explain to you.
originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Ghost147
This is the crux of the matter, so pay attention very closely. Humans are organisms. Everything a human does is just as natural as any other
organism. There is no difference. You need to be able to understand this. Just because we humans decided to create this delineation that anything we
produce is "artificial" doesn't make it so in the grand scheme of things.
The thing is, we don't alter the biological makeup of other organisms naturally. The scientific procedure of adding and removing genetic codes is not
natural to us. Sure, we created Science. Sure, we took a gene from this animal and spliced it into another. But we don't do that with as a means for
survival. We don't do that from intrinsic biological features. We do this from external sources of nature. So no, it isn't natural.
A virus changes the genes of other organisms without any instruments. Without technology. Without having to build something that isn't organic in
order to accomplish this feat. That is why when a virus changes the genes of another organism, it is a natural process. And when a Human changes the
genes of another organism, it is an artificial process.
originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Ghost147
If we discovered a spider genetically engineering a fly's DNA, would this be considered artificial? No, we would see this as a natural occurrence.
When termites can construct these...
We say it's natural.
But when humans construct these...
We say it's artificial.
Why is that?
Hmmmm. Let's see. One does this by the means of it's own biological makeup. The other does it through external sources alone. That's why one is
natural, the other is artificial.
originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Ghost147
Ghost147:"Again, you are reading my posts incorrectly."
Photon Effect: "Sure I am."
Do I really need to say it again? You're reading my posts incorrectly...
edit on 23/5/15 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)