H5N1 Virus, Atomic Weapons, Genetic Modification

Mike

I would once again beg to disagree. Moon and the rest of the stuff out there
are not living things. Life forms on Earth which have evolved over 3.5
Billion years is a miracle. You are, as a human being, much more of a
miracle than the Moon is - infinitely more complex than the moon .... In
case you are wondering, I am not basically religious by nature.

........ My point is where do you draw the line? .....

I think it is very easy to draw the line.

... don't see a reason to argue that manipulating DNA is morally different
from any of the other manipulations we make to nature every day. *It's been
the key to our success and continued survival* .........

That is still to be seen. Already there are deep questions about genetically
modified seeds in field trials and we will have to see how these bear up
when the insects they are designed to protect against gain immunity. Lot of
suicides amongst farmers in India have been attributed to BtCotton seeds,
which are genetically modified and sold to farmers by American seed
companies at very high cost. Normally a farmer will choose from a basket of
seeds, depending on local conditions. Strong marketing tactics is used by
companies to sell these seeds. Lets not confuse manipulating DNA at the
molecular level - which many people are against -
with normal breeding. This is a completely new phenomenon - there is no
historical precedence.

.... But I don't see a reason to argue that manipulating DNA is morally
different from any of the other manipulations we make to nature every day
........

I don't agree with this. When we come to the level of DNA, we are talking of
something which could be a 100 times more complex than anything else we have
handled. Things could seriously get out of hand. And we have not shown
ourselves particularly adept at handling many things - track records which
could inspire confidence. We also owe it to future generations not to alter
the basic nature of life on the planet, life which Nature has created. It is
also poor science. You never mess-up with the original sample.

Regards
Selvaraj

Something I posted at another site. There is immense possiblity that Nature
acts in an intelligent way in Evolution. This will make selective change in
DNA structure even more questionable.

............................

On Intelligent Design

Friends,

You may be aware of the interesting controversy created by the new theory of
'Intelligent Design': Proponents of this theory feel that it should be
taught in schools in USA as a counterpoint to Darwin's theory of Evolution -
based on Random Variation and Natural Selection.

For those of you who are new to this controversy, here is the background:

The 'Intelligent Design' concept is promoted by The Discovery Institute, a
Seattle based think tank. The two major proponents of this theory are
Michael J. Behe, a professor of Biological sciences and William A. Dombski,
who has a Ph.D in mathematics. Michel J. Behe argues from the angle of
'irreduceable complexity'. Say you are talking of a motor car, you need all
the components - wheels, engine, clutch, brakes, steering wheel - for the
motor car to function. You cannot in the Darwinian sense first evolve a
clutch, then evolve brakes, etc, since these individual assemblies would
have no function individually. You need to have them all at the same time.

William A. Dombski argues that let us say a radio astronomer receives radio
signals which represent the first 1000 prime numbers, then it will indicate
that some intelligent being is sending them. Such an ordered sequence cannot
occur by chance - may be the first 3 prime numbers, but not 1000 of them!
Natural systems are so complex he argues that they could not have evolved by
Darwinian combination of random variation and natural selection (alone?).

So, they reason, there has to be a concept of 'Intelligent Design', without
which such complexity as we notice in Nature cannot be possible. And if
there is 'Intelligent Design', should not there be a Designer? God?

Comments:

My only objection to the concept of 'Intelligent Design' is why assume
Nature is stupid? Why not assume that Nature is Intelligent and try to prove
that. Then the proposition changes from proving 'INTELLIGENT DESIGN' to
proving 'NATURE IS INTELLIGENT' a much more interesting proposition.

All life forms have the basic requirements for intelligence, there is some
form of nervous system (brain), feedback mechanisms to sense the
environment, means to interact with it, and a strong desire to survive and
to procreate. A powerful combination that could help an organism to
influence its own evolution in some way. The present theories assert this is
not possible, but then perhaps something is being overlooked.

Just observe the evolution of humans from common ancestors of humans and
chimpanzees over a period of five million years. Lets say that there is a
new generation every 20 years, then you would have to create a human like
us, different from Chimpanzees with 250,000 trials. Seems very little don't
you think? And if you were to argue that nothing much is likely to happen
over say 100 years then the number of trials reduces to just 50,000.

Lets shift our gaze to a beehive, a complex and well engineered system; and
a very well integrated and functional social system too. A dispassionate
non-human judge would not hesitate to give a beehive an A+, but would we
humans, our towns and cities and our social systems deserve more than a C -
? The concept that 'Nature is Intellligent' is very persuasive.

This is not to say Darwin was wrong. Just that multiple forces could be at
play.

*******************************

From: "Combs, Mike"
To:
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 7:53 PM
Subject: RE: [spacesettlers] Re: H5N1 Virus, Atomic Weapons,Genetic
Modification