CRISPR Babies

[Loudmouth]

The term "evolve" can be used as I have used it.

I suppose you could use the incorrect term, if you wanted to. If you want to use the correct scientific terminology, use "develop". There is a whole field of biology called "embryonic development".

And I am quite confident one can indeed say that a person "evolves" over their lifetime. Surely you don't think I mean "evolve" in the sense you refer to. The term "evolve" is not restricted in usage to refer to the multi-generational process of evolution a la Richard Dawkins.

When you are discussing biology, you should strive to use the biological definitions.

Again, surely you must realize that my statement was not about fetuses outside the uterus.

The thread is about embryos outside of the uterus.

 

[expos4ever]

I suppose you could use the incorrect term, if you wanted to. If you want to use the correct scientific terminology, use "develop". There is a whole field of biology called "embryonic development".

I used the term correctly and demonstrated this through provision of a dictionary definition. The fact that there may be a better term - even one that is more generally used by experts in the field (such as "develop") - does not make my usage incorrect. If I pedantically corrected all the errors in word usage I see in these forums, I would scarcely have time for anything else.

When you are discussing biology, you should strive to use the biological definitions.

My usage was perfectly correct, even if not ideal. A fetus in utero will indeed "evolve" into a human being.

The thread is about embryos outside of the uterus.

I agree that this is what the OP focused on, but I had been addressing broader issues.

 

[Loudmouth]

I used the term correctly and demonstrated this through provision of a dictionary definition.

That is not the definition of the biological term.

"Evolution is change in the heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

The term you are looking for is development.

"Human development is the process of growing to maturity. In biological terms, this entails growth from a one-celled zygote to an adult human being."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_development_(biology)

My usage was perfectly correct.

No, it isn't. I have a degree in biology. I write papers in biology. I have helped edit chapters in biology textbooks. You are wrong.

 

[expos4ever]

That is not the definition of the biological term.

I was not using the term in the sense of the definition following:

"Evolution is change in the heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

I was using it in the general sense of something that changes gradually over time. And, as such, my usage was correct.

No, it isn't. I have a degree in biology. I write papers in biology. I have helped edit chapters in biology textbooks. You are wrong.

And I am a professional writer. I used the term correctly, and I suggest you know this. The fact that practitioners in the field have adopted the convention of using the word "develop" simply does not make my usage incorrect.

 

[Loudmouth]

I was not using the term in the sense of the definition following:

"Evolution is change in the heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Yes, you were. You were using the term "evolution" in the setting of biology. That's what that word means in biology.

And I am a professional writer. I used the term correctly, and I suggest you know this.

You are not a professional writer in the field of biology which is why you don't know that you are wrong.

The fact that practitioners in the field have adopted the convention of using the word "develop" simply does not make my usage incorrect.

When you write in that field, it does make your usage incorrect.

 

[interpreter]

Evolve works for me. By introducing CRISPR babies, we (or at least the Brits) would soon evolve into a super race.

 

[Loudmouth]

Evolve works for me.

It doesn't work for biologists.

By introducing CRISPR babies, we (or at least the Brits) would soon evolve into a super race.

In this case, you are talking about multiple generations, so that would fit with evolve a bit better. A child growing into an adult is not evolution.

 

[interpreter]

It doesn't work for biologists.



In this case, you are talking about multiple generations, so that would fit with evolve a bit better. A child growing into an adult is not evolution.

An evolutionary event always starts with the first mutant with a superior trait.

 

[Sistrin]

My usage was perfectly correct...

No, it isn't.

I was not

Yes, you were.

Evolve works for me.

It doesn't work for biologists.

 

[Hoghead1]

A child growing into adulthood is a prime example of evolution, since the individual in question is undergoing a qualitative chance is his or her "essence."

 

[Cearbhall]

My question is, if they manage to create 4 super babies, while creating 82 mutants, what will they do with the mutants?

Not implant them in the first place, I assume...

 

[expos4ever]

A child growing into adulthood is a prime example of evolution, since the individual in question is undergoing a qualitative chance is his or her "essence."

Yes, even if some pedant wants to arbitrarily restrict the semantic range of the word "evolve".

 

[interpreter]

Not implant them in the first place, I assume...

In other words, kill them? How is that right, pray tell.

 

[Loudmouth]

An evolutionary event always starts with the first mutant with a superior trait.

It finishes when that trait is either selected for or against, and that is determined in the mutant's grandchildren.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes, even if some pedant wants to arbitrarily restrict the semantic range of the word "evolve".

Why is it arbitrary?

 

[Cearbhall]

In other words, kill them? How is that right, pray tell.

How is it wrong? I'm fine with it.

 

[interpreter]

It finishes when that trait is either selected for or against, and that is determined in the mutant's grandchildren.

If it is indeed a superior trait it will naturally be selected.

In 4000 BC in the Garden of Eden, also called Mesopotamia, and the Cradle of Civilization, and the Sanctuary of God, man developed a superior trait or two (like writing and farming), and the first civilized man appeared, exactly when and where the Bible says he did. So don't tell me the Bible does not agree with the last 6000 years of man's evolution. And the 7th and last 1000-year day began in 2001 right on time with the beginning of the Battle of That Great Day of God Almighty (on 9/11 when the Euphrates was dry). The next thing prophesied to happen is that people will both be raised from the dead and live to be a thousand years old. But we are not quite there yet. Then, a thousand years from now, after we (and/or God) destroy the earth, we will be raised from the dead and those judged worthy will go and populate a new earth without any sea (most likely Mars) and will live forever (with God).

 

[Loudmouth]

If it is indeed a superior trait it will naturally be selected.

The superiority of the trait is determined by selection, not prior to it.

In 4000 BC in the Garden of Eden, also called Mesopotamia, and the Cradle of Civilization, and the Sanctuary of God, man developed a superior trait or two (like writing and farming),

Those are not heritable genetic traits.

Also, it would be nice to see evidence for these claims about gardens and such.

 

[interpreter]

The superiority of the trait is determined by selection, not prior to it.



Those are not heritable genetic traits.

Also, it would be nice to see evidence for these claims about gardens and such.

The evidence is there today. Iraq's "Swamp Arabs" have lived there and farmed the fertile land between the Euphrates and the Tigris for about 6000 years they say.

 

[Loudmouth]

The evidence is there today. Iraq's "Swamp Arabs" have lived there and farmed the fertile land between the Euphrates and the Tigris for about 6000 years they say.

Where is the evidence that any of it was created by God?