The DNA so dangerous it does not exist

the thought of getting rid of men never crossed my mind. and the komodo dragon thing has been blown out of proportion. there are about 70 different types of lizards capable of parthenogenesis (as "virgin births" are called). was a pretty funny response though.
read an article years ago that had the terms "useless eater" and "proliferating herd of barbarians" in their rant about overpopulation. when i saw that the DoD was financing the search for DNA that is not conducive to life, i figured someone high in the food chain had taken the article seriously.
2 things to consider about such potential DNA: 1) there will have to be some excuse to DNA test everyone on the planet to get enough samples to find such a genetic anomaly. and 2) if such a genetic anomaly exists (probable in a gene pool of 6 billion), then that person has within them the solution for how to survive it.
there's always hope.

space.newscientist.com...
have developed software that calculates all the possible sequences of nucleotides - the "letters" of DNA - up to a certain length, and then scans sequence databases such as the US National Institutes of Health's Genbank to identify the smallest sequences that aren't present. Those that don't occur in one species but do in others are termed "nullomers", while those that aren't found in any species are termed primes.

Fascinating. Bit confused about nullomers though. They are saying its a sequence of dna that produces a protein that is helpful or neutral in one organism, but has been selected out in its descendants or relatives (if a lineage got rid of it, it must've had it at some point, and clearly that means its related). So the rationale is that the protein (or regulatory function of the nullomer sequence itself) might be damaging in the other organism. But, we know that there are genes that had been selected against already.

Interesting perspective though.

and 746 protein "peptoprime" strings of five amino acids that have never been reported in any species.

Fascinating. And if they were merely non-functional, then the sequences for them would, by mere random chance, be in organisms. They'd only be completely eliminated if they were deleterious.

And if you keep reading.... Guess who jumped into the project right away.who you ask? read below:

I don't see what they'd be able to do with it, weapon wise. Its a sequence of DNA that produces a harmful protein. So, what, they'd put it into a virus, and then infect people with the virus, and then they'd die from the harmful protein?
Why not just infect them with a deadly virus in the first place?

Further down the line there is the possibility of constructing a "suicide gene" to code for deadly amino acid primes. It could be attached to genetically modified organisms and activated to destroy them at a later date if they turned out to be dangerous, Hampikian suggests.

Yes, but this could be done for anything no? I suppose its just an easier way of doing it.
A problem with that might be that the sequences aren't necessarily producing a toxic protein, but are screwing with the regulation of the genome and are lethal (or, perhaps strictly speaking, 'reduce fitness' rather than instantly kill) in that way.

Originally posted by soficrow
Why "look" for DNA dangerous to life unless the intent is to sequence it for military use?

Because it can tell us about evolution in general, and the mechanics, operation, and regulation of the genome.

As far as the 'tagging', the Department of Defense definitly could use this to kill, but, again, why not just use any other infectious agent? It doesn't, as far as I see, represent a 'new' danger, in a sense. If you get hit with a lethal projectile, it doesn't matter if its a spear, dart, or bullet. If you get hit with a lethal biological agent, whats it matter if its a 'prime, peptoprime', cyanide, a lethal bacterial gene, or a deadly virus?

We don't have the scientific knowledge to make such judgements.

[re:eugenics]
Even if we could identify 'good' traits, we don't have the right to tell people who to have sex with and who to reproduce with. (not saying you disagree)

DragonsDemesne
couldn't we maybe find some that are beneficial as well as harmful?

The rationale they're using is that, with randoming mutating and changing DNA, you're certain to find any combination of nucleotides that you can think of. EXCEPT for ones that are selected against, by natural selection. The ones that exist no where, the primes they are calling them, are toxic, one way or another, to any and all life (or, minimally, reduce fitness amoung any population of organisms). The nullomers are stretches of DNA that have been selected against in entire groups of organisms, but not, perhaps, all organisms. Thus, they ARE beneficial in the ones that they're not selected against, the ones that they do exist in, they're beneficial for them.

Basically, natural selection spends its time getting ride of 'bad' stuff. So if there is something that has been eliminated everywhere, that, everytime it randomly pops up just from random change and mutation, gets horribly selected against, then it must be REAL bad.

Imagine, though, IF one of the primes WAS found to be beneficial, or even just plain neutral!!!!!!!! That would be really worrying. WHY wouldn't it have popped up in the first place, why would it be a prime!? That'd be really disconcerting, if there were primes that weren't deleterious.

Unfortunately, the potential for disaster looks a lot more probable than that for any benefits.

If they want to kill us, they'll find it much more effective to use bullets. If they want to kill us with DNA, they can just give us smallpox. No need to have viruses that reverse implant 'primes' into your DNA.

Hell, it might not even kill ya. For all we know, any particular 'prime' might only be deleterious in some early developmental stage. Things that are deleterious at early stages will be selected against very strongly (as opposed to things that are deleterious well after you've become reproductively active). It might not even be deleterious if it was inserted into you at a later developmental stage.

whitewave
Sounds like the potential for new "ethnic detectors". Rather than going to war, spread a disease that only affects certain ethnic groups

Yes, that is a possibility. Assuming that there are ethnic nullomers. There might not be any. Its doubtful that there would be in fact, since all humans are so closely related.


OH, but wait, what if you 'tagged' your own population with a prime, some sequence that doesn't naturally exist in humans, and then released a regular virus worldwide that would shut-down its lethal activity if it encountered a prime, but kill anyone without it.

Now THAT seems a disturbing possibility.
But, again, any prime should on its own be deadly, so I don't see how you can tag your population with it.

Maybe you could find a prime that is only lethal at pre-natal stages, and then when kids in your population are born, have them 'vaccinated' or 'primed'. You'd risk loosing some kids to pre-natal exposure and the like, but still, might work.

Genetic screening with potential mates is not a bad idea and could save a lot of dollars and grief.

How?

It didn't work in america. It didn't work in germany.
Hell, germany might've WON the war if they hadn't been busying killing millions of their own people.

Eugenics is disgusting on its own. BUT even if we ignore that, it should then be rejected because it doesn't even work.

there will have to be some excuse to DNA test everyone on the planet to get enough samples to find such a genetic anomaly.

It doesn't actually matter if it a particlar 'prime' has managed to exist in a few people or not. They could have a 'reduced fitness' (ie, less offspring) because of it, and still be alive. Hell, they can even still have offspring.

Fitness is a measure of how many offspring you have. A person with a genetic disored that cripples their body and will kill them by the time they are twenty, is more fit than a champion athelete, if he's had more kids than him.

Thats why eugenics never made any sense. Nature is selecting for greater number of offspring, not 'peak athelecism' or 'intelligence' or 'sociability'.

guyopitz
We don't let poor drivers have a license to drive so why should just anyone be able to have 50 kids.

We require people to have a driver's license to operate a motor vehicle on publically created roads. Not strictly to own or operate a vehicle. The closest you could come would be to say 'you need to have a license to leave your house'.

MischeviousElf
piggy backed onto a common virus such as a cold, but the extra tagged on sequences would then target and kill only selected racial profiles

I don't know about the S.A. government, but such a thing would be possible. There are 'genetic markers' out there, but they don't precisely identify populations in the way we socially identify populations (ie, there is no gene restricted to 'blacks', etc).
Any gene in a population of humans can be transmited to other populations of humans.

well maybe the earth could do with loosing a few million or even a few billion for that matter.... however stating that it would be ok then if only one racial group was targetted is to say the least a little brash....

While I'll agree that genocide is in some ways worse than 'regular old mass murder', NEITHER is acceptable.

Tea
Terra won't miss a few billion.

Disgusting. Who cares if 'terra' does or doesn't 'miss' humans? They're humans. They're more important than the planets 'desires'.

Who knows how brilliant we could have been if we had truly strived for the best in everything.

Bah. So say people that don't figure they're the ones that will be targeted.

We breed our animals for superior traits. Why the hell aren't we doing the same with ourselves?

Because we're not animals. We breed dogs for small size so they can more adequately fit into our small houses, or cows so that they will make more milk.
You can't breed character, intelligence, or moral fibre. You can't breed a more 'humane' human.

So be it. I'm not susceptible to the belief that I deserve anything including my life

What you deserve is irrelevant. Everyone has a right to their own life. Its what makes us human beings.

Originally posted by Tea
PC-overload disgusts me as much as my eugenics stance angers you.

Maybe you are simply too unaware to realize the human terrors that result from what you are so casually suggesting.

But anyone that 'blows their top' at the suggestion of mass murder and genocide is certainly not wasting their time.

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by soficrow
Why "look" for DNA dangerous to life unless the intent is to sequence it for military use?

Because it can tell us about evolution in general, and the mechanics, operation, and regulation of the genome.

I doubt that it's even close to necessary to study DNA "incompatible with life" in order to accomplish this goal - never mind isolate it and/or create GM products composed of it.

...why not just use any other infectious agent? It doesn't, as far as I see, represent a 'new' danger, in a sense. If you get hit with a lethal projectile, it doesn't matter if its a spear, dart, or bullet. If you get hit with a lethal biological agent, whats it matter if its a 'prime, peptoprime', cyanide, a lethal bacterial gene, or a deadly virus?

'Primes' that are "incompatible with life" on our planet could conceivably wipe out life on earth. We're talking ultimate weapon here - more than the biological equivalent of nuclear proliferation.

Plus, biological agents stay in the environment, and can mutate - other weapons do not - so "alien DNA" is the gift that keeps on killing.

Also note, microbes with DNA that is compatible with life on this planet will tend to evolve in a more cooperative, interdependent, and symbiotic way. Thus remaining compatible with life on the planet - and becoming ineffective as a bioweapon.

...There is a sick military logic to the project.


.

Originally posted by soficrow
I doubt that it's even close to necessary to study DNA "incompatible with life" in order to accomplish this goal

I'd say that its a huge issue. That there are sequences of DNA that appear no where in any organism. Thats a big deal. Are they creating poisonous proteins? How do these proteins behave? Are they screwing with the regulation of the genome? How? By what mechanism are they acting?

Consider that a good way to learn about something is to look at a broken example, and see why its NOT working.

- never mind isolate it and/or create GM products composed of it.

Inserting it into living genomes (GM) would be necessary to study it. Isolating them would be necessary for identifying them.

'Primes' that are "incompatible with life" on our planet could conceivably wipe out life on earth. We're talking ultimate weapon here

?
How?
They deadly. But there are lots of deadly things out there.

Plus, biological agents stay in the environment, and can mutate

If a prime mutates, it is no longer a prime (unless it mutates into another prime sequence). The whole issue with these things is that that are sequences of bases that do no exist anywhere in the genome. THe authors are assuming that can only be because they are so deleterious to fitness, that they've been selected against, everywhere, whenever they pop up. So if they mutate, iow, change their sequence of bases, they're not primes anymore, they'll look like sequences that have different functions in different animals.

Also note, microbes with DNA that is compatible with life on this planet will tend to evolve in a more cooperative, interdependent, and symbiotic way.

Cooperation only evolves if it increases fitness, under the particular and peculiar circumstances at the time.

Originally posted by whitewave
the thought of getting rid of men never crossed my mind. and the komodo dragon thing has been blown out of proportion. there are about 70 different types of lizards capable of parthenogenesis (as "virgin births" are called). was a pretty funny response though.
read an article years ago that had the terms "useless eater" and "proliferating herd of barbarians" in their rant about overpopulation. when i saw that the DoD was financing the search for DNA that is not conducive to life, i figured someone high in the food chain had taken the article seriously.
2 things to consider about such potential DNA: 1) there will have to be some excuse to DNA test everyone on the planet to get enough samples to find such a genetic anomaly. and 2) if such a genetic anomaly exists (probable in a gene pool of 6 billion), then that person has within them the solution for how to survive it.
there's always hope.

if molesters are a genetic anomaly i wonder what they will try?

www.unknownnews.org...

The FBI originally created the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) in 1990 to help investigators search among convicted sex offenders and other violent criminals for matches to evidence from unsolved crimes. Over the years, its use has rapidly widened to include other types of felons, juvenile offenders and some who committed misdemeanors. ...

When labs can show a match is close enough to indicate a likely relative and there are no other leads, a new interim plan allows states to disclose identifying information on FBI approval. ...

If only 5 percent of criminals had biological relatives in CODIS, then "cold hit" matches could increase by thousands, the authors of the paper estimated.