Category Archives: Transhuman News

I would like to start this Topic with a discussion on the contents of the ancient Sumerian Tablets where genetic engineering experiments were done:

1. to create humans or human-like species (Neanderthals) through mixing human gene with the apeman's gene, and

2. to alter the features of humans.

Through this discussion, we can evaluate the possibilities of whether ancient genetic engineering experiments may have been responsible for some of the weird looking bones, which had been found and which are being considered as evidences of evolution.

But before I start a discussion on the contents of the Sumerian Tablets, I am going to explain a little about the contents of the ancient Sumerian Tablets here, so that the reader will understand why I am using the Sumerian Tablets in my discussion here. Then, I will connect the genetic engineering experiments, and other contents in the Sumerian Tablets, to the Neanderthals and Cro Magnons. Then, I will be discussing the following:

1. the possibilities of evolution of the apeman to the present day man

2. how the Replitians had paved the way for ET and evolution believers (just as they had paved the way for Buddha, Abraham, Christ, and Mohammad).

3. the possibilities of ancient genetic engineering experiments that may have created and / or aggravated the Rh negative blood situation (I will be connecting the Cro Magnons to this discussion relating to the Rh negative blood; and I will also be discussing the elongated skulls, giants etc).

I will be discussing the Sumerian Tablets later, in another Topic, so as to give explanations on the story in the Sumerian Tablet. So I am not going to explain, the contents of the Sumerian Tablets, to a great extent here.

You will be able to read the translations of the contents of the Sumerian Tablets (in videos), through the link:

Originally posted here:
Evolution, the Creation Theory or Genetic Engineering ...

Genetically engineered crops: Something to be feared or something to be encouraged?

Two Penn State professors presented the pro side of the genetic-engineering debate at the Fogelsville Volunteer Fire Company Thursday night as part of state Rep. Gary Day's (R-Lehigh/Berks) annual Agricultural Town Hall Meeting.

About 60 constituents, many of them local farmers, turned out for the meeting and sandwich buffet.

Before introducing the speakers, Day said the 187th District he represents, which includes Upper Macungie Township, was predominantly agricultural but has shifted as farming has given way to residential and commercial development.

He said the topic of Thursday's informational meeting, traditionally referred to in his office as "Farmers' Night," surfaced when he visited his alma mater to learn more about Penn State's work with genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

GMOs are organisms that have been altered to produce specific characteristics such as cold tolerance or pesticide resistance in plants by extracting genes responsible for certain traits from the DNA strands of one organism and inserting them into another.

"You rely on your university to give you the facts so you can make decisions," Day said in introducing Richard Roush, the new dean of Penn State's College of Agricultural Sciences, and Troy Ott, a reproductive biologist in Penn State's Animal Science Department.

Roush said genetic engineering is not that much different from traditional plant and animal breeding where you select for a desired trait, it's just faster.

"Genetic engineering uses proteins found in the natural world to edit, copy and paste DNA," he said, adding that the evolving technique has the benefit over traditional breeding of being more specific and more rapid.

Restrictions on GMOs vary across the globe. Many European countries are restrictive with regard to growing GMOs but are more relaxed about importing them.

The rest is here:
At Farmers Night, Penn State experts give props to genetically engineered crops

During the latter stage stages of the 20th century, man harnessed the power of the atom, and not long after, soon realised the power of genes. Genetic engineering is going to become a very mainstream part of our lives sooner or later, because there are so many possibilities advantages (and disadvantages) involved. Here are just some of the advantages :

Of course there are two sides to the coin, here are some possible eventualities and disadvantages.

Genetic engineering may be one of the greatest breakthroughs in recent history alongside the discovery of the atom and space flight, however, with the above eventualities and facts above in hand, governments have produced legislation to control what sort of experiments are done involving genetic engineering. In the UK there are strict laws prohibiting any experiments involving the cloning of humans. However, over the years here are some of the experimental 'breakthroughs' made possible by genetic engineering.

Genetic engineering has been impossible until recent times due to the complex and microscopic nature of DNA and its component nucleotides. Through progressive studies, more and more in this area is being made possible, with the above examples only showing some of the potential that genetic engineering shows.

For us to understand chromosomes and DNA more clearly, they can be mapped for future reference. More simplistic organisms such as fruit fly (Drosophila) have been chromosome mapped due to their simplistic nature meaning they will require less genes to operate. At present, a task named the Human Genome Project is mapping the human genome, and should be completed in the next ten years.

The process of genetic engineering involves splicing an area of a chromosome, a gene, that controls a certain characteristic of the body. The enzyme endonuclease is used to split a DNA sequence and split the gene from the rest of the chromosome. For example, this gene may be programmed to produce an antiviral protein. This gene is removed and can be placed into another organism. For example, it can be placed into a bacteria, where it is sealed into the DNA chain using ligase. When the chromosome is once again sealed, the bacteria is now effectively re-programmed to replicate this new antiviral protein. The bacteria can continue to live a healthy life, though genetic engineering and human intervention has actively manipulated what the bacteria actually is. No doubt there are advantages and disadvantages, and this whole subject area will become more prominent over time.

The next page returns the more natural circumstances of genetic diversity.

The rest is here:
Genetic Engineering Advantages & Disadvantages - Biology ...

Let's stop drawing lines in the sand when it comes to genetically modifying people and talk about engineering everybody

Want to see what a genetically modified human looks like? Just glance in the mirror. You are the result of an experiment that randomly modified your DNA in at least 50 places.

No ethics committee in the world would approve such a dangerous practice. But hey, it's OK because the scientist in this case is nature. And nature is good, right? Never mind that some unlucky kids die horrible deaths because they end up with cruel and fatal mutations. Never mind that just about every one of us will suffer at some point because of the legacy of countless generations of this uncontrolled experiment.

What if we could put a stop to this? We have already begun in a small way. For the past three decades some communities have been screening would-be parents to ensure their children do not inherit one particularly cruel genetic modification Tay-Sachs disease. More recently, we have begun to screen IVF embryos before they are implanted in cases when we know children risk inheriting one or other of the nastiest results of nature's meddling.

And now, with the UK parliament's vote in favour of three-parent babies, we are about to go a step further and actively replace damaged genes with working versions that can be passed on to subsequent generations, breaking the chain of a range of inherited diseases. Great! This form of genetic engineering should result in the birth of healthy children and end much suffering... but wait! Gasp, horror! Did I write the e-word? I'm sorry, I meant "mitochondrial donation".

The decision to allow three-parent babies is right. But the fact is, opponents were also right to describe this as a step towards tinkering with the rest of our genome. Most supporters seemed to have convinced themselves otherwise, but let's look at the arguments.

One is that mitochondrial replacement is no big deal because mitochondria contain just 37 of the 23,000 or so human genes. Sure, but most genetically modified plants and animals have only one or two altered genes. If replacing genes is OK as long as it's only a small proportion, you could justify quite substantial alterations this way.

Ah, we are told, but the point is that these 37 genes do not affect children's characters or appearance. The "only known traits" that could come from the mitochondrial DNA concern energy production, proponents of the technique have argued in New Scientist. Fine. But most of our 23,000 genes are involved in fundamental processes such as cell division, and do not have any known effects on our character. So by this logic, it is OK to tinker with most of our genes.

Of course, replacing faulty mitochondria, which are self-contained organelles within the cell, is relatively simple and we think safe. Replacing or altering genes in the cell nucleus is much trickier. It involves editing DNA by cutting and pasting bits of it recombinant DNA technology and it is not safe at the moment. It would be utterly wrong to attempt in people with existing technology.

But the technology is advancing at a breathtaking pace. We're getting much better at editing DNA, with the help of easier and more precise techniques such as CRISPR, and we can now check those changes with whole-genome sequencing. It could be just decades before it is safe to attempt germ line genetic engineering using recombinant DNA technology.

Read the rest here:
Crossing the germ line facing genetics' great taboo