Reply
Mon 20 Sep, 2010 05:03 pm
People with various genetic diseases share 99.9% of the DNA with healthy people. People with excesive hair, 6 toes and so on probably share 99.9% of the DNA with normal people. People with black skin, brown skin, yellow and white skin have been fighting because of the concept of race even though thay all share 99.9% of the genes. Just tiny deviation hardly measurable create so much conflict.
Now, cloned animals and genetically modified animals are allowed as edible food. Considering that barely measurable differences in DNA can cause so much problem, are clones suitable as food? Already bovine hormones fed to animals may have led to obesity in people and antibiotics fed to unhealthy animals may have bred superbugs. Will clones that cannot survive on their own be suitable as food. Will they bring about minor changes in DNA such that we may have among us "monsters" or "defects" with excessive hair, toes, blue skin, etc.? It does not take much to alter the genes or to have them expressed in unusual ways. Just 2% difference in DNA separate man from beast.
@talk72000,
It surely depends on the genetic mass itself, not the mere %. As I understand it, the genetic mass are quite significant thus the relative % is high.
@HexHammer,
DNA is the genetic code of all living creatures. It is a double helix curled up to a tiny dot in all cells. It is the information and directive to all cells as to their role in the creature.
I'll be damned if i'll share. Those chimps can go out and get their own DNA, they don't need any of mine.
@Setanta,
Wait till the deformities appear then the fans will be hit and blame will be sought all around.
talk, Not to put a clog into your topic, but chimp's and human DNA can range from 95% to 98.5%. Some say 1% difference.
@talk72000,
talk72000 wrote:
DNA is the genetic code of all living creatures. It is a double helix curled up to a tiny dot in all cells. It is the information and directive to all cells as to their role in the creature.
Not quite, what you describe are the Chromozon, and the effect of genes.
@talk72000,
Much of that variation, when assembled , is actually the rearrangement of the chromosome 2 in humans which is a fusing of two chromosomes of the chimpanzee genome. If you look at the genomes as actual mathematical variation, the differences virtually go away (with a few million transcription errors on some genes like HOX )
@talk72000,
talk72000 wrote:It is 1% difference
Ah, then you acknowledge that CI is right, and that you are wrong to say that we share 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees. The figure should be 99%, which is explicit in your statement above.
@Setanta,
1% , 2% cant we just share our niches and get along?
@farmerman,
Sure, i'm down with that idea . . . however, i was stirring the turd, and insist upon my right to do so.
@talk72000,
talk72000 wrote:
Wait till the deformities appear then the fans will be hit and blame will be sought all around.
Nonsense...You know why? Those with the mutations won't marry and won't have any babies. End of problem.
@talk72000,
I think your body tears proteins apart to remake the building blocks into your own proteins, so it shouldn't matter food-wise.
You can contract diseases from uncloned creatures if you don't cook the meat to kill the bad critters.
I disagree with Setanta. Sharing our DNA with others is the right thing to do.
@Arjuna,
Oh yeah? How do you want to go . . . baked, broiled, boiled . . . ?
@Setanta,
As long as there's lots of butter I don't think it matters. Beyond that is the issue of what wine to choose.
Garlic . . . don't forget the garlic . . .
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
Garlic . . . don't forget the garlic . . .
Garlic and onions, my friend. Proof that God loves us.
@Setanta,
I started this discussion after watching a dvd on human evolution which may be 2 or 3 years old and it mentioned 98% but basing on the references it is 98% with chimps (common DNA) and 99% (common DNA) between humans so the difference is 1% between humans and chimps.
@Miller,
When parents have children that develop abnormalities with defective features or abnormal hair growth or 6 toes, etc. other children may single them out for ridicule. Some people will be more prone to these genetically modified meats and develop mutations. If the mutations are more pronounced would they be considered non-human or freaks? Even normal humans were considered sub-humans by the Nazis so people with Nazi tendencies would certainly start political movements against these "defective" humans and call for extermination. Now the parents of these chidren would be in a bind. With the clone meat provided to the public eing "approved" for consumption a whole lot of children could conceivable be affected and become "beastly" in the features. Now we really have problem. Will the government be sued for reconstructive surgery or payment for suffering and disfigurement of their children?
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace