Arg

I think that the so called genetic manipulation you are suggestion will be this shotgun turned upon ourselves !

I dont think that it is possible to create some sort of superhuman by genetic manipulation without any indesirable consequences (on the long term' date=' maybe originally neglected).

 

Mandrake[/quote']

With enough time and will, almost anything is possible. I also think that in your case, turning a shot gun on yourself might not be such a bad idea.

Forward... toward our own demise!

I suppose that depends on how you define 't', 'energy', 'space', 'oscillion', 'G', 'energeticmatter', and 'space'. It could in fact be right!

It does worry me somewhat that loads of little kids out there are making black powder and blowing their fingers off, but hey!

It's probably for the best. Fingers tend to get children into all kinds of trouble.

Then you should know more.

If it lacked equations and formulae, I would burn it in protest. If I wanted to take things on faith, I'd believe in God and alchemy.

I will obtain this book and master it!

I suppose the ultimate victory against ecology would be when the last man turns the shotgun on himself.

That would be fairly ultimate, yes.

On the bright side, given time and a loosening of the "moral" deathgrip which threatens to be the end of us all, we will be able to manipulate our genes for any traits we so desire. We will succeed in artificial selection where we are failing in natural selection, and damn the consequences!

that doesn't answer the question.

 

"junk" DNA does stuff' date=' no one know what it is, but when it is removed, the results aren't pretty.[/quote']

What it "does" is take up space, act as protection against mutations, etc. And sure, if you remove it, things won't work properly; the stereochemistry of various biological reactions hinge upon everything being a certain way, and that way includes the junk being there.

 

"Junk" DNA, by definition, doesn't specifically code for anything.

Good riddance, I say. We need something new for more advanced observations and calculations, not some antiquated dinosaur like the Hubble. The stupid thing was broken from the start! It belongs in history books and nowhere else.

We might as well give up thinking.

I agree. I'd also like to take this opportunity to say that it seems like many already have!

Of course you're running into problems reconciling everything: it's all a classification issue. There aren't any mammals, or reptiles, or bacteria, just stuff on a spectrum grouped for convenience. You can say that a mammal is a being with all these various characterstics, and you can convincingly lie to yourself about that most of the time, but if you go backwards in their evolution you'd run across creatures so close to mammals it'd be hard to tell the difference. At that point, all that separates this from that is a wish and a whim. Too many so-called scientists forget that.

i dont think that the females have stopped showing signs. the males from other species can differentiate the human females in heat. that's why i said human males have lost the detecting skills.

That doesn't matter. The sexes evolved together, so which one lost or gained which ability is unimportant, as long as the sum of their traits results in men not being able to tell. I'm sure it's a combination of females' ovulation becoming more concealed (certainly not completely), and males losing some of their ability to detect it.