If you could alter genetic makeup of your baby would you do it?

[colton]

What gene would control "race"? Are you referring to melanin content? Because even that doesn't determine race. Race has no genetic basis

Saying it has no genetic basis is nonsensical. Of course race is genetic. You look like your parents, who look like their parents, etc., who look like other people in the village where they group up. It's in inherited and built into your DNA. And by analyzing your DNA these days, people are able to say with some degree of certainty where your ancestors were from. It's clearly genetic.

However, saying there is no specific gene or even obvious combination of genes that control race is correct, which what you started with.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Pretty sure at the hight of his power Tiger Woods made more money than MJ & Bolt combined.

Cool

Sent from my A0001 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Siro]

Saying it has no genetic basis is nonsensical. Of course race is genetic. You look like your parents, who look like their parents, etc., who look like other people in the village where they group up. It's in inherited and built into your DNA. And by analyzing your DNA these days, people are able to say with some degree of certainty where your ancestors were from. It's clearly genetic.

However, saying there is no specific gene or even obvious combination of genes that control race is correct, which what you started with.

Clearly not. What determines the cut-off for a "race"? Is each family a race? Village? Country? Continent? It's arbitrary, and it is based on looks. There is no genetic definition for race. Race is defined culturally (really, Western culturally), and then the genetic factors are determined after the fact.

 

[b_line]

Saying it has no genetic basis is nonsensical. Of course race is genetic. You look like your parents, who look like their parents, etc., who look like other people in the village where they group up. It's in inherited and built into your DNA. And by analyzing your DNA these days, people are able to say with some degree of certainty where your ancestors were from. It's clearly genetic.

However, saying there is no specific gene or even obvious combination of genes that control race is correct, which what you started with.

Yeah I've gone down this road on this board before, you are about to get labeled a racist biggot, even though nothing could be further from the truth. Because, you know, dal pal studied this in college and stuff. Even though it's a near certainty that you can tell where a person is from based on DNA, race is a "social construct."

 

[Deleted member 848]

Clearly not. What determines the cut-off for a "race"? Is each family a race? Village? Country? Continent? It's arbitrary, and it is based on looks. There is no genetic definition for race. Race is defined culturally (really, Western culturally), and then the genetic factors are determined after the fact.

Give us a genetic definition of race, bline or Colton. Or Log, or anyone else.


PS: I don't look like my parents very much & I sure as hell don't look like my parents' parents.

 

[MVP]

Things like Down Syndrome yes. I would have them fix it.

In the hypothetical that being gay is something findable and is actually found. NO, I would not fix it. Nothing wrong with it.

I have a wonderful 18 year old daughter who is gay. She is good the way she is. Wonderful sister with a wonderful wife raising a wonderful boy (straight) and they are fine the way they are. Two cousins are gay and they are fine the way they are as well. It is not something that needs "fixing" IMO.

Edit: I'm with Siro

Thanks for great response. I think what sometimes scares some people is the unknown. You have personal experience raising gay kid and when you and her had no issues growing up it is easy to see why you think that way. But I see the other side of the argument as well looking at statistics of depression or suicide rates of gay people as well.
I was more interested in moral side of this hypothesis.... is it moral to alter genetic makeup or not? As dalamon pointed in a lot of beliefs it should be untouchable ( aka don't mess with gods will)

 

[♪alt13]

Okay, a serious response now.

I would get rid of any genetic diseases and deformities. Anything else, imo, is a violation of the baby's integrity of personhood. If they want to change their eye color or athletic ability or whatever, then they can edit their genetics themselves.

Also, OL gave the worst response in this thread. Editing a person's genetics to make them unconditionally love you! /facepalm

eyesight?

 

[b_line]

Give us a genetic definition of race, bline or Colton. Or Log, or anyone else.


PS: I don't look like my parents very much & I sure as hell don't look like my parents' parents.

I refuse to have this conversation with you. Your responses are completely unreasonable and you act like it's a witch hunt. Even with a respectable person. I think you are a great poster otherwise, but when you get on these ridiculous witch hunts about something you read in your four years of school, it's unbearable. The last time I talked with you about this, I couldn't stand the way you treated anyone with a differing opinion.

 

[Hotdog]

I would give the baby a mixture of the genes of everyone on Jazzfanz. That litte **** head would be best damn arguing and insulting person in the world. Probably wouldnt be very cute either.

Then when I got sick of its ****, I would give it up for adoption.

 

[Eminence]

Yeah, in a heartbeat. I'd design the crap of that lucky *******.

Sexuality is a multifactorial trait for sure though (not pure inheritance- environment plays a huge roll).

 

[Deleted member 848]

Yeah I've gone down this road on this board before, you are about to get labeled a racist biggot, even though nothing could be further from the truth. Because, you know, dal pal studied this in college and stuff. Even though it's a near certainty that you can tell where a person is from based on DNA, race is a "social construct."

I've been quite polite with others so far in this thread, even after a poster called my post "nonsensical" (for an idea that is basically widely accepted as fact in academia). It would be like me walking into a biology thread & calling evolution "nonsensical". I also don't think I've ever called people bigoted due to this topic.

--

That's totally fine if you don't wanna have this discussion. I'll let Siri & Darkwing Duck carry the torch.

 

[Eminence]

Give us a genetic definition of race, bline or Colton. Or Log, or anyone else.


PS: I don't look like my parents very much & I sure as hell don't look like my parents' parents.

Pretty sure it's commonly agreed at this point that their isn't one. Different populations of people sure, but all within the same subspecies (Homo sapiens sapiens). And taxonomists don't bother with it after that point(for any subspecies, not just us, it's just impossible to tell the differences at a genetic level).

 

[b_line]

I've been quite polite with others so far in this thread, even after a poster called my post "nonsensical" (for an idea that is basically widely accepted as fact in academia). It would be like me walking into a biology thread & calling evolution "nonsensical". I also don't think I've ever called people bigoted due to this topic.

--

That's totally fine if you don't wanna have this discussion. I'll let Siri & Darkwing Duck carry the torch.

Lol. You literally called me racist last time we talked about this because I asked you to explain heritable traits like pigmentation and hair color. I get that you think race diesnt exist, but if you can look at a person with fairly near certainty and say "that dude is from Scandinavia" or if you can trace a persons migrational heritage in their DNA, how do you explain that in a world where race does not exist? Again, I understand that we are all the same creatures, but I just want to hear how you explain the differences in the billions if humans on this earth without the concept of race, or race by another name. And to say "we are all the same" is a copout, because we are quite obviously not.

For example, my ridiculous ancestors thought it would be cute to mate with neanderthals, and now I have super bad allergies because of it. My predisposition to being allergic to pollen is scientifically proven to be greater than people from africa. Traits like this are why I still buy into the race concept.

 

[Miggs]

Are you ****ing kidding me? I say most athletic ever and your mind goes to Tiger Woods?

I'm talking Usain Bolt mixed with MJ.

Are you surprised by the response?

 

[Miggs]

Lol. You literally called me racist last time we talked about this because I asked you to explain heritable traits like pigmentation and hair color. I get that you think race diesnt exist, but if you can look at a person with fairly near certainty and say "that dude is from Scandinavia" or if you can trace a persons migrational heritage in their DNA, how do you explain that in a world where race does not exist? Again, I understand that we are all the same creatures, but I just want to hear how you explain the differences in the billions if humans on this earth without the concept of race, or race by another name. And to say "we are all the same" is a copout, because we are quite obviously not.

For example, my ridiculous ancestors thought it would be cute to mate with neanderthals, and now I have super bad allergies because of it. My predisposition to being allergic to pollen is scientifically proven to be greater than people from africa. Traits like this are why I still buy into the race concept.

Could the looks be more a factor of external (e.g., weather, proximity to the equator or poles, etc.) conditions that help create the way we look, at least a little bit?

 

[colton]

Clearly not. What determines the cut-off for a "race"? Is each family a race? Village? Country? Continent? It's arbitrary, and it is based on looks. There is no genetic definition for race. Race is defined culturally (really, Western culturally), and then the genetic factors are determined after the fact.

I think you must define race differently than I do. I think of race in terms of what's mentioned at the start of this Wikipedia article, namely "phenotypical traits and impressions of probable geographic ancestry". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics. So it's clearly based at least in large part on genetics. Not so much on culture.

I certainly don't believe there would need to be a cut-off for a race, with hard boundaries and arbitrary divisions between races, as it seems you think I should believe.

 

[colton]

Give us a genetic definition of race, bline or Colton. Or Log, or anyone else.

Why would there need to be a particular definition? Are you seriously arguing that one's genes don't determine to a large extent one's looks?

PS: I don't look like my parents very much & I sure as hell don't look like my parents' parents.

I bet you look a lot more like your parents than I do. And I bet you look a lot more like your parents than you look like my parents.

 

[colton]

I've been quite polite with others so far in this thread, even after a poster called my post "nonsensical" (for an idea that is basically widely accepted as fact in academia).

I'm guessing we're simply using different concepts of race. I'm open to new ideas if you want to explain the idea you're talking about.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Why would there need to be a particular definition? Are you seriously arguing that one's genes don't determine to a large extent one's looks?

Phenotype does not equal race.

Got two friends who are roommates who have been asked on multiple occasions by multiple if they're brothers...or twins. One is half-Asian and the other European descent with curly hair.

So, that definition is completely unusable in the world of science.

 

[Deleted member 848]

I'm guessing we're simply using different concepts of race. I'm open to new ideas if you want to explain the idea you're talking about.

No, we aren't.