there is no reason not to believe or think there is an upper limit to our species. having 7 billion people alive all at once increase the likely hood that something is going to go wrong. having 7 billion people alive over the course of thousands of years, because some DNA piggy backs or dies off due to breeding being spaced out, decreases the likely hood. either way having 7 billion people alive today gives us another piece of information to add to this very discussion with more accuracy and less opinions and theorizing.
cloned plant being metaphysically different (and cloned animals and people) is what i poked at with the comment of "(let's not forget all the imaginary things like god, love, the soul and other things that aren't tangible.)". the findings of things that science cannot quantify was not to be made noted of to further elaborate upon as science does not believe in the existence of such things typically. science thinks the human soul weighs 21 grams, basically by measuring a person just before they die and just after. given certain factors a human fart weighs 22 grams. the human body goes through a few processes after it dies, one of those being it evacuates it's bowels shortly after dying. could a human fart, evacuating it's bowels and exhaling after it dies be confused with the weight of a human soul when trying to measure it? how does one weigh something that is almost completely intangible? (if it exists at all?)
vitamins synthesized in a lab are different than ones found in nature. you don't walk through this world and find vitamins laying around before humanity hit the scene. i tend to think less about food in that way. there is more of a hierarchy to the effectiveness of getting vitamins in you and how you process them. you start from the source: off the tree, from the dirt or off the vine is best, fresh at your local place you buy them from, then frozen, then canned, then from concentrate. vitamins in efficacy would fall probably somewhere between fresh at your local place and frozen. how our bodies digest, process and distribute them also factors in. when getting those vitamins from food it is not only easier but more efficient to get them from naturally occurring foods for the same reason when you get them from a vitamin it is best you take the vitamin shortly after or during a meal. it stays in your system longer than taking it on an empty stomach and simply passing it out of your system. not to mention binders and other artificial ingredients and human error.
what we know is only so much, we don not fully understand everything yet or everything about anything, also stated in last post. theorizing is partly basing something of using ones creative process, thought process and current understanding of general knowledge to elaborate and pose a question to prove or disprove.
we are discussing whether or not there is a concept of limits to human DNA. the findings are not conclusive yet.
no science behind it?! most of those links are scientific findings. again the science doesn't know everything yet because not everything has happened to be known and draw one conclusive closure to it. what is and what isn't is not as important as to what is being discussed and what is still possible to extrapolate from findings. comprehensive is hard to be conclusive while going through or finding something out, before the experiment is over with because that's being theoretical with no physical proof to substantiate it. kinda like seeing the forest before the trees.
why would DNA molecules just suddenly break down from human population increase?
one of the links provide a source that not all DNA from all races are compatible. it was in response to Xorkoth saying " If anything it would only strengthen our genes, as people mated across more and more cultures, making negative recessive genes less likely"
is this somehow damaging the genetic code?
by introducing failed DNA into the gene pool that somehow manages to survive being totally aborted then it does weaken the code. same source as above. if you make cookies with expired ingredients you get very poor quality in results.
is it somehow breaking the nuclear forces holding them together?
not only do the mutations do this naturally, as well as the cell process of reproducing failing to do so. but also mother nature (not some supreme deity but attributing that there are forces at work in this universe that we still do not fully understand to this day and have an impact on our lives. similar to how the force of gravity was not understood at one time) as well as environmental factors, mass extinction and human experimenting on that DNA can create infertility and other problems in the DNA doing what it has always done. if it's not broke, don't fix it.
"There's no suggestion I can see for how it would work." i'm only responsible for what i say, now how you take it. a person can't make another person think about something in a way they don't, can't, wont or aren't ready to yet and personally i don't want to; something comes from organically talking about things that doesn't from forced sharing of information. " we are not only ourselves you know, when gathered together, we make a person whom none of us knows well enough. perhaps a fourth entity which we should give a name, because he is more than our collective selves. perhaps we must better learn to control him. but destroy him now? no, that we can not do. if we do, we all betray each other."
why would cloned plants be nutritionally or chemically different?
i'm having a hard time locating the info on the net, i learned about it offline. (aside from some relevant info in one of the links) cloned plants actually do not last as long in some cases as the original ones do because of the natural cycle of being dormant, springing forth, bearing fruit to harvest and then going dormant again. specifically this study was with wheat and the root system.
they are designed to produce better "fruits" for us to consume, to be resistant to insects and insecticides and to be more adaptable to harsher or more unfavorable environments. technically speaking they are different from the original but i digress. cloned anything has never existed before aside from a-sexual reproducing cells like bacteria so the outcome is still not fully known.
it is relatively new and we have not given it enough time to let it runs it's course and see what happens, the experiment that is part of science and discovering data to support those theories and to turn them into facts. also if you copy one piece of paper, then take that copy and copy it, and so on and so on; then eventually the product will be a completely black page.
"consistently observed about how matter and biology work" - again, we don't know everything yet. we must leave room for the possiblity of learning something new otherwise we allow ourselves and science to grow stagnant because science does not exist without humans. science is the observation of the known universe around us and extrapolating theories off of those observations to manipulate matter to improve our way of life and understanding of the universe around us to increase our conveniences, progressive knowledge and odds of surviving. these workings of the universe would still go on even if human beings were no longer around to observe them.
truth is sometimes stranger than fiction, especially hard to accept sometimes. life imitates art and vice versa. <-- these are small factors in the equation of thinking about something but they are relevant in how we perceive things and the affect on how we think, they are influential and passed down as generally true from years and years of experience from those who came before us.
also there is nothing that science has ever made that is a true creation out of nothing and without some outside influence. the phone you are using to read this comes from land lines, that came from letters, that came from verbal communication and that comes from a need to connect with what is outside of us. one of the only things that human beings truly create that is original is another human being. that precious life is derived from our DNA, messing around with it in any fashion is along the lines of playing god, for good or bad. doesn't mean i don't agree in some cases of tampering with it, just stating an opinion some have that i tend to lean towards.
generally imagining things has led to some developments most people are not aware of. isaac asimov is not only a well known science fiction writer but also has consulted with nasa on several occasions for space exploration or theories. he managed to balance out fiction and reality, truth and theory.
there's that phrase again, contradictory evidence. i am asking again to see the contradictory evidence please?
some brains are more unreliable than others, some are not. the human brain is also evolving. we are going through the next step in human evolution today and one part of that is how our brains work so be careful with how you would handle yours (you being any one in general).
science is not the only tool we have utilized to understand the universe around us. much like religion of the past it is the new craze and go to for everyone even though they don't understand most of it. being of a scientific mind is a good thing, putting blind faith in it is akin to disasters like trump being in office. we have utilized religion, science, society and experience to do so as well as our brains and 5 senses. this new step in evolution we are going through is not only of the mind and practical things in life but of the body, soul, emotions, sixth sense and a collective understanding on how things work so we can accomplish something as a whole or in larger groups. science will fail in these new understandings if it is utilized alone. leading to more of that general we don't understand everything yet but your right...
even though sometimes in threads they are side tracked or derailed they produce something beneficial to the original topic or something new that might over shadow the original topic or not. i think in this case i have derailed it, not produced anything new and overshadowed the original topic.
@swilow: my apologies for getting too far off topic. i think les knight has the right idea at heart but his vision is clouded and he is going about it the wrong way. i still agree with JessFR in post #2 from this thread and still think it was very well said.
![:\](https://bluelight.org/xf/BL_Images/Orig_Emoji/wrygrin.gif "wry grin :\")
