Legitimate: why be furry, why be part animal?

[arinot]

... erm... the glowing rats just means that current genetic modification just uses other genes...

You mean that it is possible after about a hundred attempts. v.v

As for wings, I bet there'd be a way to modify it to grow outta my back or something... hopefully...

You'll be needing a gene for extra arms, which would be common in insects and arachnids, as much as that piques my interest (Hoping to study Entomology but with a forensic bent.) this is adding more genes to the mix, and likely to trial and error.

And Why'd I need a beak?

Because you'd have no hands to type with, unless you modify yourself again with multi-limb genes. However this was a cruel joke I'll admit, but thinking you could use a stick that you bite and tap keys, or you could train yourself to use your feet/talons to type.

Anyway, point is that genetic changes will start using other genes already known. I have a good idea of this from a friend interning at NIH and my own work...

You don't need a friend at NIH (I'm assuming a University, as I don't know what NIH stands for.) to tell you that, standard grade biology they teach at High School mentions it. Such as the division of Cells and the re-combination of Chromosomes, like what happens in the early stages of a Zygote developing. However Genetic enhancement is still possible, without using genes taken from other animals. ^.^

Meh, you're pretty right, but I'm just saying that's where we'll start.

also , NIH is the "National Institute of Health" for the USA. We're talking where our cancer research is being done as well as military grade pathology.

also trial and error eventually brings success... eventually...

And yeah. If anything, furriness will bring some new abilities to the gene pool. A flexible spine from a cheetah may be a good thing as well as what ever makes tortoises 200+ years old. I mean, at some point our appearances will stop mattering. Offspring will be from tubes and intercourse will just be for pleasure...

unless of course your genes are too similiar >_>.

[Skunky von Angst]

I smell a Gattaca-type discussion coming up...

[asfargone]

here, i'll try to kill that. anyone remember the numerous references in history where a single species becomes abundant and then suffers a huge plague. black death of the 17th century, the complete eradication of the american chestnut, the red death .

[arinot]

yeah....

But we has genetics. genetics = disease immunity once we can identify the problem...

given enough time of course...

we can evolve faster than other races, and in ways we want too.


Assuming we can pull off what we've disscussed...

[asfargone]

with each wave of communications technology we creep further into our caves...oh god...massive mitosis might become our only means of reproduction.

[Rachel]

also , NIH is the "National Institute of Health" for the USA. We're talking where our cancer research is being done as well as military grade pathology.

Miltary grade pathology? Is that like looking at the different types of bullet wounds and shellshock? X3
Sorry, I kid.

also trial and error eventually brings success... eventually...

Just like an infinite amount of Monkeys on an infinite amount of Monkeys will eventually write the complete works of Shakespeare?
While true per se, it might not be realized given the finical restraints of our times, ie the recession. Unless somehow Wings becomes an answer to our economic crisis. (It could stop investment bankers being able to jump out the stock exchange. heh)

And yeah. If anything, furriness will bring some new abilities to the gene pool.

It will improve biodiversity, which is being diminished by human action, but what it isn't introducing new genes to the gene pool, but mixing the ones we already have. But talking to someone from the City's University, who'se researching synthetic or artificial genes, I think we're going to end up with Super-Man first because it's more do-able; less money will need to be spent on trials because it's more predictable to do, with the less genes are being investigated from splicing.
Also genes are instructions to build proteins, but certain proteins may have more than one effect, for example are hormones such as testosterone and estrogen. So we may not end up with the desired "abilities." Or end up with side-effects, or have more than we bargained for. so to speak.

anyone remember the numerous references in history where a single species becomes abundant and then suffers a huge plague.

Well, it doesn't always have to be a plague, but often it could on a smaller scale, be the introduction of a new predator, or a species evolves to be venomous (With another species trying to develop an immunity.) Equilibriums are quite rare in nature, so mishaps often occurrs, like natural disasters or ice-ages. (Technically we're in an ice-age already with the ice at both poles.)

But we has genetics. genetics = disease immunity once we can identify the problem...

Genetics only doesn't equal that, but is also a misunderstanding of virology. The Bacteria and Virus ALSO evolve to counteract our changes or to be more virulent and to spread. We may be able to map out a chain of Deoxyribonucleic Acid, but this doesn't mean we're suddenly able to stop AIDS, although we do know what causes it.

we can evolve faster than other races, and in ways we want too.

Where did you study Biology?
1. The rate of evolution is keyed to the amount and rat of change in an enviroment, which is why there is still animals we've dubbed 'living fossils'.
2.Race is a redundant term in biology. only people who use it are politicians in America, and the British NaziNational Party. (I think you mean 'species'.)
3.Yes and No, While we can selectively breed cattle and grow peas together to bring around benefits, or simply look more appealing by mixing the alleles together. Genetic engineering by splicing animal genes together, will eventually work but once it passes finical and ethical problems.

Assuming we can pull off what we've disscussed...

I'm beginning to feel ignored. v.v

[asfargone]

military grade pathology can be best described as medical/psychological testing at the limit of what can be gotten away with. yes, by statistics and given the insanely tiny and complicated things cells do it looks as if we're not going to go anywhere with this. in fact all our understandings are not quite there yet.
you say your thing, i'll keep testing captured immigrants in my basement.
"what are you doing sherlock?" "progress, for the sake of progress!" "wait, what are you holding? is that a ring?" "MY PRECIOUS!"

[arinot]

Aids is hard to fight. It contains RNA instead of DNA, and the Protein shell keeps shifting.

and by evolution, yes... wrong use of the word.
I mean more along the lines of we can change as needed, even if it is from an external locus of control.

And i agree with the side effects...
Thankfully though, it may mean that there will be... heats... (I kid)

[Rachel]

Actually, AIDS contain neither, because it's a clinical syndrome and not a virus. heh, however what do you mean by 'protien shell' you mean the 'nucleus' of HIV?

Regardless of what, we'd still change, .. survivial and the fittest ect.

Strangely enough, I get periods of heat. v.v
As Jake could probably testify for.
Kinda embarrassing but oh well...

[VentKazemaru]

back on topic,

I would be a furry because I'm really disgusted on how humans are now. Why do people fear change if that's the basis on nature? You can slow down change of course, like extinction, but not forever. And there will be a time when humans need a new form. And when it does,I hope it means being part animal.

[Skunky von Angst]

And when it does,I hope it means being part animal.

Humans are already animals.
I don't really understand the sentiment of humans being horrible, and that being an anthropomorphic animal would be an improvment on how we behave and whatnot.

[VentKazemaru]

yeah, I guess I messed that up.
Which brings me to another note that humans don't consider themselves animals. We kill waaaaaay more chickens than foxes ever do. That makes us worse than animals!

[Skunky von Angst]

Which brings me to another note that humans don't consider themselves animals.

True, but they're wrong. We're part of the world a, we're just dicks about it.

We kill waaaaaay more chickens than foxes ever do. That makes us worse than animals!

Meh, not really. I mean, sure, by industrializing the meat process we do kill more than we require to survive. But animals kill and eat other animals, and even their young; lions and some apes are notorious for infanticide, and one type of bird (forgot which) practices siblicide. Its all a matter of relativity, I suppose.

[arinot]

I believe you are thinking of the American condor.

Humans are animals, and we all have our own thought processes. I don't really see humanity as bad or anthropomorphism as a asthetic improvement. If anything, maybe we can gain something from animals. We don't neccessarily have to look like em. And when it comes down to it, beauty is relative. The same way some guys are assmen and so forth, many furries have an interest in some animal.

In all, in my opinion, just having gene therapy would be awesome and could lead to a better human. THe concept of beauty would rupture though because there'll be so many looks. i.e. Elephants and platapuses look pretty different, and would see each other as ugly in their own perspective due to subconscious reproductive wants.

Rachel ( yeah, not AIDS... HIV. And it has no nucleus. Viruses are just packets made of protein that contain DNA/RNA that takes over another cell's systems. It is because HIV contains RNA that makes it harder to vaccinate for. RNA changes more rapidly than DNA. DNA stays relatively stedfast (the reason we don't get cancer few years after birth

And yes we still would change... HEATS FOR THE WIND!)

[Rachel]

humans don't consider themselves animals. We kill waaaaaay more chickens than foxes ever do. That makes us worse than animals!

There is an linguistic paradox with this, which kinda makes it Ironic. You say Humans don't consider themselves animals (See below as well.) Yet you segregate Us and Animals with the last note. You although proving as an example of what you say, makes it kind a biased. But the middle point is, there is more of Us (Homo Sapiens) than there is of Foxe (Canis Vulpus?) so we need to do it on a bigger scale. Although there are environment and agricultural reasons why a farmer would want to do chicken farming for a particular area, it just is optimal to do so, more or less. But Foxes eat the Farmer's chickens which help support our population, which makes them seen as 'vermin'.

The main reasons that humans don't consider themselves animals, is the use of layman's terms; in common usage an animal would be anything but Us, for use of every day convience. For example a Zoo keeper being told to feed all 'animals' wouldn't feed the visitors to the zoo as well, regardless of how much they may be the missing link. XD Or from Misunderstanding Biology and Taxinomy, or actively clashing against it believing the Divine Creation story (My Grandpa wasn't a stinkin' ape, and neither am I!) aka magic man dunnit. XD