Slashdot Mirror


Communities of Mutants Form as DNA Testing Grows

GeneRegulator writes "The NY Times is running a story on communities that are forming around kids with rare genetic mutations. New technology that can scan chromosomes for small errors is being applied first to children with autism and other 'unexplained developmental delays.' It turns out that many of them have small deletions or duplications of DNA. Meanwhile, hundreds of little groups are forming around the banner of their children's shared mutations. As new research shows that many of us have small deletions and duplications of DNA that separate us from our parents, and that many of these "copy number variants" contribute to skills and senses, the families described in the story may presage the formation of all sorts of 'communities of the genetically rare' in the general population, not just amongst the developmentally delayed."

161 comments

  1. Finally! by MightyYar · · Score: 5, Funny

    Finally I'll be able to find others with an abnormally small penis!

    Prior to this I had been hanging around sports car dealerships.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    1. Re:Finally! by Alapapa · · Score: 0

      you & the other Hummer drivers may, in fact, be suffering from SPS

    2. Re:Finally! by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 5, Funny

      Finally I'll be able to find others with an abnormally small penis!

      Prior to this I had been hanging around sports car dealerships.


      Well, that explains why you haven't been able to find others of your kind. Your information is sadly out of date. The micropenis crowd is found in the SUV section these days. If you want to meet some folks who will make you feel like Ron Jeremy by comparison, try a Hummer dealership.

      Me, I'll be outside working on my Toyota Corolla.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    3. Re:Finally! by smidget2k4 · · Score: 1, Funny

      And I'll be driving two H2s at once. One is remote controlled.

    4. Re:Finally! by NeverVotedBush · · Score: 0

      Just a wild guess, but do you have an implant in your "ISP"? That's kind of a remote control too...

    5. Re:Finally! by MightyYar · · Score: 3, Funny

      A Toyota Corolla? You must be hung like King Kong. Next you'll tell me that you don't even have a speed boat or a gold chain.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    6. Re:Finally! by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      I've never really understood this sort of thing, it's really a lame joke at best.

      If you had completely "ordinary" interests and had no interest in anything that's different, does that mean you have a really big unit? It just seems like this sort of joke is part of a semi-conscious attempt to homogenize people by mocking others that happen to like or own unusual things.

    7. Re:Finally! by downix · · Score: 1

      And here I am driving a Moped....

      --
      Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
    8. Re:Finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to drive a bike. That is, until the spokes caught my member...

    9. Re:Finally! by Monsterdog · · Score: 1

      I'm going to be running around in my Messerschmidt Bubble Car.

    10. Re:Finally! by MightyYar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Jesus Christ, man. I make a joke at my own expense! Don't get so bent out of shape just because you're into collecting phallic symbols! If you were Bart Simpson, I'd have you write "It was just a silly joke." on the blackboard.

      Besides, there's liking unusual things, and then there's spending hundreds of thousands of dollars extra to get 1 extra knot out of a boat... and then you weigh it down with a full kitchen and bedroom. Or getting a really, really fast race-caliber sports car... and then ordering power windows. I have a full appreciation for people who are into racing and like to go fast - but most people are just showing off.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    11. Re:Finally! by MarsDefenseMinister · · Score: 0, Troll

      I fly a 200 knot capable airplane worth a half million dollars. I bought it myself, paid cash. The way I see it, hot dogs of any kind are for poor people.

      --
      No weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men.-Ronald Reagan
    12. Re:Finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sexy. What kind of plane?

    13. Re:Finally! by d3ac0n · · Score: 1

      If you were Bart Simpson, I'd have you write "It was just a silly joke." on the blackboard.


      Ok, so if he's Bart Simpson, I guess that would make you Principal Skinner, the guy that still lives at home with his mother? ;)

      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    14. Re:Finally! by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I don't get laid as much as Skinner.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  2. Handedness by CRCulver · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've often heard left-handedness attributed to development conditions in the womb, but is it suspected to be one of these random DNA mutations, or to some higher-level effect on the brain?

    1. Re:Handedness by thewiz · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, a random mutation would be more like myself and my wife. We both have "disabilities" that, as far as the doctors can tell, are from random mutations. My wife has achondroplasia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarfism and no one else in her family (ancestors included) had dwarfism. The congenital heart defect I was born with is normally caused by the mother having scarlet fever when pregnant and my mother never contracted the disease.

      --
      If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
    2. Re:Handedness by hedwards · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think that it really depends what the mutation is whether or not this is a good idea. When it comes to dwarfism, that makes some degree of sense in that the community can be scaled appropriately for people of that size.

      But in general I think that this is a really, really bad idea. Segregation by religion really worked out well for pre WWII Jews in Europe. Sure that's probably about the worst that it can be, but it is still a good reason to consider whether this kind of thing is a good idea. I personally have very little confidence that as a species we've come far enough for it to work. I mean if you substitute German, Italian, or Japanese for Muslim, you have largely the same stuff happening again as 90 years ago, sub in Irish or Chinese and you've got a repetition of 100 years or so ago.

      Support groups, and medical facilities on the other hand where appropriate would without a doubt be of benefit to everyone who has a rare condition. As well as being less wasteful of medical care for everybody else.

      I'm sure that for those people that do have a rare condition that it would be nice to know other people with it, but it is a risky thing to concentrate a group of people that are different than the populace at large, if for no other reason than it makes it far easier to establish an us them mentality. Even a minor condition like being able to wiggle ones ears makes a surprising impact on ones world view.

    3. Re:Handedness by dwalsh · · Score: 1

      Well then you don't know anything about left-handedness. If it was a DNA related thing, left-handed parents would be more likely to give birth to left-handed kids.

      --
      ${YEAR+1} is going to be the year of Linux on the desktop!
    4. Re:Handedness by cariaso1 · · Score: 1

      There are 4 snps known to have an influence http://www.snpedia.com/index.php?title=Rs1446109

  3. Re:Please help out by nuzak · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Can we just IP-ban anyone who posts a myminicity link?

    --
    Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
  4. X-Men by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Finally X-Men are real. There, I said the first X-Men comment!!!

    1. Re:X-Men by The+Evil+Couch · · Score: 1

      Finally X-Men are real. There, I said the first X-Men comment!!!
      You got the post in awfully fast. As fast as Quicksilver, you might say.
  5. Re:Please help out by The+Ultimate+Fartkno · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Myminicity links should get ip-banned.

    Stealth myminicity links should have their ip published so nerds with free time and anger issues could track the poster down and punch them in the balls.

  6. That's all well and good ... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 4, Funny

    the families described in the story may presage the formation of all sorts of 'communities of the genetically rare' in the general population

    They may not fare so well in the Great Collapse of 2017 (mark my words ... I pick a different year every time so I will be right.) In any post-Apocalyptic environment, everyone knows that those who are "different" are invariably put to death, unless they have some supra-normal power(s) that they can use to defend themselves and rule over the remaining survivors.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    1. Re:That's all well and good ... by rant64 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Mutation is behind the entire concept of evolution. Sometimes, genetic mutation will drive you bald or limp. Then you die. Sometimes, genetic mutation will cause a newborn to be blessed with +1 CHA or +1 INT. Those are the specimen that thrive.

    2. Re:That's all well and good ... by mrmeval · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I know you're joking but most will just die because their protected environment went away.
      How many will die if insulin were just not available? A friend needs ranitidine to survive, without it he'd be dead within a short period of time. Turn off the civilization switch and you'll lose a huge percentage. It really doesn't take much to turn it off either. :(

      --
      I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
    3. Re:That's all well and good ... by i.of.the.storm · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Haha funny. Hmm, slashdot should have some sort of mini-moderation whereby you can mod people up by 0.01 if you don't have a modpoint, to increase the precision of moderation.

      --
      All your base are belong to Wii.
    4. Re:That's all well and good ... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      No kidding ... the great weakness of civilization (at least at our current stage of development) is its essential fragility. It would be hard to wipe out the human race entirely (short of nuclear winter or some engineered pathogen) but civilization can be destroyed very easily. And given that we've consumed most of the readily-available mineral resources, if there is a major worldwide collapse odds are we won't be climbing back.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    5. Re:That's all well and good ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But all you +1 Str guys can eat my will save.

    6. Re:That's all well and good ... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      I know you're joking but most will just die because their protected environment went away.
      How many will die if insulin were just not available? A friend needs ranitidine to survive, without it he'd be dead within a short period of time. Turn off the civilization switch and you'll lose a huge percentage.

      Of course, if the protected environment of current civilization were to be taken away, most of the perfectly healthy people would also perish. Not only are there many times more of us than hunter-gatherer lifestyle can support, but I for one have no idea how to live off the land.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    7. Re:That's all well and good ... by Metasquares · · Score: 1

      Civilization might return by making use of different resources. Also, even if civilization is destroyed, the accumulated knowledge it has built up would likely be more difficult to destroy (and thus civilization could possibly return more quickly). For example, the Aztecs did pretty well prior to their conquest by the Europeans considering that their technology was technically stone-age.

    8. Re:That's all well and good ... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      True, but more and more of that knowledge is becoming enshrined in storage systems readable only to a technology at least equivalent to our own (and maybe not even then, as encryption becomes more and more prevalent.) I used to think that, well, even if a new Dark Age comes to pass, at least we'll have all the information in the thousands of libraries around the world to help us out of it. The problem is, less and less is being published in paper form every year, more and more is being distributed electronically. Worse, due to ridiculous IP laws much of our commercially-funded research and technology is being kept proprietary indefinitely.

      Information is fragile, and as the very idea of a "book" becomes passé, we may find that everything we've worked so hard to learn these past two hundred years will be inaccessible. It's happened before. As societies collapse (or are sacked) much tends to be destroyed and lost forever. The only good news is that in the Internet Age information is being spread far and wide, so there's less dependence upon centralized stores (remember the great Library at Alexandria, and what ultimately happened to it.)

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    9. Re:That's all well and good ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well at least you got the year right.

      2 + 0 + 1 + 7 = 10
      10 base 2 = 2 base 10

      2nd coming rawr.

    10. Re:That's all well and good ... by emilper · · Score: 1

      given that we've consumed most of the readily-available mineral resources, if there is a major worldwide collapse odds are we won't be climbing back. If there is a major worldwide collapse, the cities and their garbage dumps will be the best source of raw materials, and the recovery will be swift: just think how much iron and copper can be scavenged from a modern office building and compare with the effort to extract that from richest ore deposits ever exploited.
    11. Re:That's all well and good ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      gb2/k5/

    12. Re:That's all well and good ... by d3ac0n · · Score: 1

      True,

      But most everything prior to the last 30 years is well enshrined in paper. I would say being able to quickly build civilization back to a 1980's level would be pretty darn good. Heck, even back to a 1950's level would be more than acceptable. Yes, we wouldn't have computers as we now know them, but we would re-develop them rather quickly.

      There are also several efforts to preserve knowledge in a non-perishable format by several Libraries around the world. I remember reading about some of them, possibly on Slashdot. I would provide a link but I'm just too damn lazy today, however I'm sure that Google will serve you well should you choose to look it up.

      I personally think that while we would lose large portions of our society, we would eventually be able to build back up to our current state, perhaps within 100 years. Which is pretty impressive, as far as civilizations go.

      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    13. Re:That's all well and good ... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm hardly going to say you're wrong, and I certainly hope you're right. Let's hope that we never have find out. Much as I enjoy the occasional end-of-the-World-as-we-know-it novel or motion picture, I can't say as I'd want to live in one.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    14. Re:That's all well and good ... by kalirion · · Score: 1

      I don't know, Moties seemed to do it at regular intervals. Just have to build a few robust museums to shorten the Dark Ages. An Encyclopedia Galactica might help there as well.

  7. Rare != good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Parents are forming communities around their disabled children, and there is no scientific evidence linking the causes of disabilities cited in the article to anything beneficial to life in human society.

    I won't help these parents foster an aura of chicness around useless and/or harmful mutations. It's selfish and fundamentally wrong, and the next step - as forwarded by these selfsame groups - is "designer disabled" babies.

    I don't support creating children with blindness or autism any more than I support creating children with cancer or polio. Political correctness is fine to an extent when used diplomatically in politics, but the idea of "differently-abled" conditions being attractive is abhorrent.

    1. Re:Rare != good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The nail that sticks up gets the hammer. "Communities" revolving around developmental disabilities will not extend to normals because there is no reason for it. The fact that the technology exists means less than nothing until the human genome is fully cracked. There is no reason for identifying rare genetic traits that produce no identifiable effect. You may as well expect "communities" of people with similar whorls in their fingerprints to gather together. Tautological, but unless it means something it's meaningless!

      There is a chance you will see communities forming around genetic rarities with net positive effects, but when we can identify those it will be no use segregating the natural-born possessors since everyone will want the effects.

    2. Re:Rare != good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I totally agree. Those who are in some way disabled are subhuman, and shouldn't be allowed to form support groups. They deserve to suffer alone, especially since they're so proud of the medical problems, handicaps, ect., and wouldn't get rid of them if given the chance. /sarcasm

    3. Re:Rare != good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're in favor of intentionally crippling babies in the womb or designing them with disabilities in order to nurture and add participants to the community of the disabled?

    4. Re:Rare != good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Idiot. They don't like/want the disability, they're basically just support groups. They're not crippling unborn babies to further the disabled community, just helping each other cope with whatever particular ailment they've got. How many of them do you think would wish disability upon their children? Not many, I bet.

    5. Re:Rare != good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not exactly clear what it is you "don't support." Do you not support the right of the disabled and their families to find social connections and/or procreate? No matter how problematic the "designer disabled babies," as you call them, might be, I promise you that living in a society which supports eugenics is likely to be much, much worse.

    6. Re:Rare != good by WingedEarth · · Score: 1

      We used to have a solution for genetic defects in this country. It's called sterilization. After war, it's the best way to keep the nation's gene pool sanitary. I'm not talking about ambiguous genetic anomolies, like those causing autism, but rather I'm talking about genetic mutations that result in clear defects, like blindness or retardation. "Three generations of imbeciles is enough." - Oliver Wendall Holmes, in a 1927 Supreme Court opinion upholding eugenics laws.

    7. Re:Rare != good by timpaton · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I won't help these parents foster an aura of chicness around useless and/or harmful mutations.

      Who the hell is talking about an aura of chicness?! Have you ever heard of the concept of a support community?

      Where does one even start looking for medical information specific to a child with genetic defects? Many of these conditions are rare to the point that there is absolutely zero published research on them.

      You don't go to your local library and pick up a book about the gastrointestinal peculiarities of children with a chunk missing out of a particular chromosome. The best resource is other parents, who are caring 24/7 for kids with the same condition. For even the rarest conditions, with only a few diagnosed cases in the world, the internet makes it possible to contact other affected families, and discuss important issues relevant to your children.

      That's how we come to form a "community" around a genetic defect. Discussing our kids' medical needs. Therapy programs. Choice of support equipment. Debriefing over recent experiences. Celebrating achievements and milestones, such as a child learning to speak... at age 9. Education strategies. Ideas for travelling with incontinent young adults. Glamourous stuff. Totally chic.

      For $deity's sake, at least RTFA before posting such a ridiculous AC rant. Or, for that matter, RTFA before modding such a rant as "insightful".

      I'm going to take the indulgence of posting a link to http://www.pkskids.net. I'm sure a few of you can spare a couple of bucks to help people living with and around mosaic tetrasomy 12p. Despite what our AC might think, it's not a designer disability, and not something any of us chose for our children

    8. Re:Rare != good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who the hell is talking about an aura of chicness?!

      The parents who, say, intentionally deafen their kids so they can fit in with "deaf culture?" The ones who oppose any and all medical research which might help alleviate their kids' conditions?

  8. Re:Please help out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    YEAH! 'Cause that's totally what most nerds do! Don't you remember in school? The roaming packs of nerds picking fights with all the bigger, stronger kids?

  9. Re:Please help out by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

    Just do what I do with links on slashdot.
    Pretend you are playing a game and in your head just before you click a link, think "It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue."

    It works wonders and the next time you play the game you are more cautious about clicking links.
    At the absolute very least the grandparent did not hide any of his links in redirection services.

    --
    liqbase :: faster than paper
  10. Save the cheerleader... by slummy · · Score: 2, Funny

    save the world

    1. Re:Save the cheerleader... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      do you see this heroes crap?, what a shame....

    2. Re:Save the cheerleader... by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      Are you on the list?

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  11. This isn't anything new by DebateG · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Support groups for families and children with rare diseases have been around for decades. Whether someone in your family has Rett sydnrome, Glanzmann's thrombasthenia, or Schwachman Diamond Syndrome, you can find other people who are in a similar situation. There interesting thing here is that doctors are identifying new chromosomal abnormalities and sub-classifying people whose diseases were previously under an umbrella of ambiguous terms such as "autism." This is a good thing, because these diseases are most certainly heterogeneous at the molecular level and probably manifest themselves in subtlety different ways that aren't obvious when there are only four or five cases ever described. Unfortunately, the treatments for them rarely takes into account the underlying genetic cause, and advocacy and support groups such as these can better inform doctors and researchers about these rare diseases.

    1. Re:This isn't anything new by antdude · · Score: 1

      Here's one for Nager's Syndrome that I have (rare case too). :(

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    2. Re:This isn't anything new by srealm · · Score: 1

      I am not aware of any support group for things like 5p- (aka. Cri du Chat) which pre-date the internet. This is an EXTREMELY rare genetic disorder, as in 50-60 cases a YEAR in the US (which considering there were about 4 million live births in the US last year that puts it at 1 in 65-80,000). But then, before the 80s or so, they used to just put affected children in mental asylums for life. Unfortunately, my son has this condition, and it is good to find others out there going through the same thing.

    3. Re:This isn't anything new by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      My girlfriend has DeBeers Diamond Syndrome. She lives with it just fine, but it's made *my* life a living Hell.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  12. Holy Fuck. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Developmentally delayed? Genetically rare? Are they talking about retards, or mutants?

    If anyone thinks these are the "next stage" of human evolution, or indigo children, the answer is no. Nor are down's syndrome people "prototypes" for the next stage.

  13. It's a direct consequence of allowing abortion. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look, in this modern world a woman has a right to kill a fetus. So it has no rights before it is an infant.

    People can make a hue and cry about deaf couples breaking their babies' hearing intentionally until the cows come home, but in the end, messing with a zygote to give it three eyes or a saucer-shaped head is not worse than not allowing it to live at all.

    Anyone that stands on the principle behind the right to kill fetuses in the womb cannot oppose designer-deaf kids or any other similar organic kludges.

    1. Re:It's a direct consequence of allowing abortion. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look, in this modern world a woman has a right to kill a fetus. So it has no rights before it is an infant.

      People can make a hue and cry about deaf couples breaking their babies' hearing intentionally until the cows come home, but in the end, messing with a zygote to give it three eyes or a saucer-shaped head is not worse than not allowing it to live at all.

      Anyone that stands on the principle behind the right to kill fetuses in the womb cannot oppose designer-deaf kids or any other similar organic kludges.


      We are starting a cat ranch in Lacon with 100,000 cats. Each cat will average 12 kittens a year. The cat skins will sell for 30 cents each. 100 men can skin 5,000 cats a day. We figure a daily net profit of over $10,000.

      Now what shall we feed the cats? We will start a rat farm next door with 1,000,000 rats. The rats breed 12 times faster than the cats. So we will have 4 rats to feed each day to each cat.

      Now what shall we feed the rats? We will feed the rats the carcasses of the cats after they have been skinned. Now Get This : we feed the rats to the cats and the cats to the rats and get the cat skins for nothing!
    2. Re:It's a direct consequence of allowing abortion. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone that stands on the principle behind the right to kill fetuses in the womb cannot oppose designer-deaf kids or any other similar organic kludges.

      Bullshit. A dead fetus is dead. It cannot suffer anymore, it is no more alive than a hamburger. A live, crippled infant could suffer for years and years.

      Acutally, though, I support the rights of parents, and ONLY the parents, to decide the genetic makeup of their offspring.

    3. Re:It's a direct consequence of allowing abortion. by Original+Replica · · Score: 1

      but in the end, messing with a zygote to give it three eyes or a saucer-shaped head is not worse than not allowing it to live at all.

      You must have a very negative view of the afterlife. Everyone dies, it is just a question of when and how much it hurts.

      Genetic disease/deformity is one of the best reasons for maintaining legal abortions. In the interests of giving every zygote the highest possible quality of life it is sometime necessary to end that life in the first trimester. It is akin to shooting someone in the head when they are in the midst of burning to death. Deaf parents requesting deaf children is lowering the possible quality of life of the zygote.

      --
      We are all just people.
    4. Re:It's a direct consequence of allowing abortion. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it's a zygote, not a person? ... Because only genetics determines your quality of life? ... Because genetic variation is a bad thing? ... Because you're scared of difference? ... Because they're too expensive to keep alive?

      fuck off

    5. Re:It's a direct consequence of allowing abortion. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. A dead fetus is dead. It cannot suffer anymore, it is no more alive than a hamburger. A live, crippled infant could suffer for years and years.


      Your view is hopelessly archaic. Having a crippling disability is now a protected form of uniqueness deserving of having communities formed around it.

      Characterizing the traits of rare individuals as "suffering" is bigotry.
    6. Re:It's a direct consequence of allowing abortion. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go make yourself different since you're so keen on it. Pluck out your eyes and chop an arm off for starters. Go on, your quality of life isn't determined by eye- or hand-possession. It's a perfectly reasonable challenge according to you, so go do it right fucking now.

      Chop your fucking arm off now. Do it, or stand forever as a hypocrite.

    7. Re:It's a direct consequence of allowing abortion. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I've got no depth perception. Makes life a little different. I guess I should have been killed because I won't have the best life possible, and won't be able to see shapes in the clouds and crossing the street is a bit more intimidating then most. I suppose I shouldn't have been allowed to participate in your perfect world.

    8. Re:It's a direct consequence of allowing abortion. by Eternauta3k · · Score: 1

      You must have a very negative view of the afterlife. Everyone dies, it is just a question of when and how much it hurts.
      So you propose just throwing the baby over the wall and hoping there's a magic land of joy on the other side? Besides, your argument justifies any kind of murder.
      --
      Yeah. Would you choose a neurosurgeon who pokes around people's brains in his spare time? I wouldn't.
    9. Re:It's a direct consequence of allowing abortion. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chop your fucking arm off now. Do it, or stand forever as a hypocrite. I see how it is. You didn't want to be a hypocrite, so, in lieu of cutting off an appendage, you got that massive lobotomy. Good job. Idiot, these people aren't damaging themselves intentionally, they're just trying to get by and live the best life they can, and they don't need jackasses like you antagonizing them. Jeez, judging by your posts, I'd say you're just jealous of the physically disabled.
    10. Re:It's a direct consequence of allowing abortion. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody is arguing that babies born with natural genetic defects should not be allowed to be born, you flat-visioned lummox, and it isn't a logical conclusion that follows from any argument that has been made, you monocular steer.

    11. Re:It's a direct consequence of allowing abortion. by sssssss27 · · Score: 1

      I'm with you in thinking that might be too much of an extreme. I might have a genetic disorder that has a 50% of being passed on to any of my children. If so, and genetic engineering can't correct it, I will more than likely not have children and will instead adopt. Obviously it's something one should discuss with their wife, or husband as the case might be, but I think it is selfish to have children when you have a genetic disorder.

    12. Re:It's a direct consequence of allowing abortion. by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      Fuck you, Aspergers' isn't a disability. If you want to take that away, you can pry it from my cold, dead hands.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    13. Re:It's a direct consequence of allowing abortion. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aspergers' isn't a disability


      And clowns like you who have this viewpoint naturally want the right to break your offspring's minds in the womb to have them share in your "gift".

      People like you who would intentionally ruin their children make me sick.
    14. Re:It's a direct consequence of allowing abortion. by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      If by break you mean unbreak, and if by my kids you mean somebody else's kids, because I'm not planning on having kids.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    15. Re:It's a direct consequence of allowing abortion. by rbanffy · · Score: 1

      Maybe because being born with some severe sensory limitations impacts quality of life.

      Since we are presently discussing the right of deaf people to select deaf embryos while discarding healthy ones, I feel free to point these parents are robbing their offspring the right to experience, at least, music. Music has accompanied mankind since its very beginning and has always played an important role in most social settings.

      I admit those parents may appreciate the silence they live in, but it's selfish and narcissistic to create children to their image.

      Mankind is on the verge of taking control over its own genetic heritage. If it is to survive, it must do so wisely.

  14. Re:Please help out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You forgot that these nerds have access to the internet hate machine.

  15. Vive la difference - we all carry lethal alleles by dstates · · Score: 4, Informative

    Another name for these microdeletions is copy number variation, a normal form of variation in the human genome. There is also a fundamental concept in population genetics called genetic load which are recessive lethal alleles present in any population as a result of new mutations and limited selection against rare recessive alleles. Just be glad we are not all the same because then a single bad virus like the 1918 influenza could wipe us all out. Besides life would be so boring.

    --
    Statesman
  16. I've heard of one of those communities. . . by Salgak1 · · Score: 1

    . . . runs out of school for exceptional children on Long Island. Place, as I recall, is called Xavier's Academy. . . .

    1. Re:I've heard of one of those communities. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aren't you glad you didn't go for the obvious joke?

  17. Branching of the species? by Original+Replica · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So if "the genetically rare" for their own communities they will inevitably forge their own traditions and standards. ie: a different standard of beauty "There was no missing the similarities: the flat bridge of their noses, the thin lips, the fold near the corner of their eyes" or different etiquette "If one of his siblings is sitting at his place at the breakfast table, Jackson screams. If a schoolmate gets too close to him, Jackson screams. If someone interrupts him while he is speaking, Jackson screams." So this community is well on it's way to being a separate culture. That's fine, perhaps even wonderful. I'm curious about the long term. This new culture, being originally based around genetic differences, will carry these differences from generation to generation. People want children who carry on their traits and culture, if that includes a standard of beauty that is inline with the facial structure and body size of Primordial Dwarfism, then it would make sense that they would want their children to be Primordial Dwarves. I'm wondering at what point of maintaining a consistent genetic difference would that culture become a parallel species in the way that Homo Erectus and Homo Ergaster lived side by side.

    I hope that no one takes offense at my ponderings. I do not mean to suggest that anyone born with a genetic difference is less than human. I am simply wondering if and when those differences will become self sustaining and a primary characteristic within a newly forming culture and if that would require a new scientific classification. Humanity is more than just genetics.

    --
    We are all just people.
    1. Re:Branching of the species? by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      As a parent, it sounds like Jackson is just another spoiled little brat, and he's acting that way because he has bad parents, not because of any genetic difference.

    2. Re:Branching of the species? by Aladrin · · Score: 1

      Note: I am not calling you, or anyone else, racist.

      I got through to "want their children to be Primordial Dwarves" and thought: How is this -any- different than racism? It's a genetic difference that basically means nothing. The only difference I see is that they are segregating themselves, instead of the majority doing the segregation. In the end, I predict a bunch of 'genetic difference X' minorities that suddenly want special rights simply because they are different.

      Newsflash: Everyone is different. Not all of us choose to shout our differences from the rooftops.

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    3. Re:Branching of the species? by Original+Replica · · Score: 1

      it sounds like Jackson is just another spoiled little brat

      Just like my ADD was "just lazy and undisciplined"?
      TFA didn't seem to mention the particular condition that Jackson has, but I know autistic kids that have some socially unwelcome reactions to seemingly minor things. I think it has to do with their perceptual differences, what seems important to them seems unimportant to us and vice versa. Where you think it is no big deal for Jackson to sit in a different chair, jackson may see a deep interruption to his daily ritual. Where you think of his screaming as frustrating and embarassing, he thinks that a scream is just a noise and is trivial. That is part of why a community of autistic children would likely form an etiquette that is foreign to us. Your reaction, which would be most anyone's reaction if Jackson where screaming in a foodcourt or church, is why the parents of these children have sought to form group with like families.

      --
      We are all just people.
    4. Re:Branching of the species? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      unfortunately no, its unlikely, badly behaved kids are one thing, but I know of 3 siblings that suffer from similar problems. unfortunately the birth mother has the same problems.

      Your thinking of a child that has a temper tantrum for 10 minutes or so. These kids can keep it up for 6 hours with no difficulty. and no its not nurture they have adopted from a very young age. The other children in that household are completely normal.

      yes 6 hours constant screaming...

      behavioural problems can be from nurture, but in this case its nature.

    5. Re:Branching of the species? by Original+Replica · · Score: 1

      How is this -any- different than racism?

      The difference is you presumption of a negative connotation. If a person is proud of who they are, they may well want to pass as much of that along to their children as possible. That isn't racism, it's identity. My whole family has blue eyes. When I look as my nephews, I see their blue eyes and how they are so very similar to their father's and to mine. I wouldn't love them less if they had brown eyes, but I also wouldn't have that similarity/connection with them. I can only assume that you would want to have your offspring to share in your traits as well. My point about "want(ing) their children to be Primordial Dwarves" was that, within a community bound together by the genetic trait of primordial dwarfism, that trait would be a source of pride and would be seen as a positive thing to be passed on. Any negative feelings surrounding that idea are brought by our different culture. To suggest that a person wouldn't want their child to be like them would seem to be a deeper prejudice to me. Deaf parents are requesting deaf children after all. Once you remove the idea that these people are somehow "broken" it makes a lot of sense. As the Darwinian influences of predators and medical difficulties and the need for physical prowess, all subside so to must the Darwinian born ideals of what make a person "complete" subside.

      --
      We are all just people.
    6. Re:Branching of the species? by crashfrog · · Score: 1

      To suggest that a person wouldn't want their child to be like them would seem to be a deeper prejudice to me. Deaf parents are requesting deaf children after all. Once you remove the idea that these people are somehow "broken" it makes a lot of sense.

      But a person who is deaf is broken, objectively. They have a hearing impediment, a disability. And it's monstrous - an absolute barbarity, like the sexual abuse of a child - for a deaf person to deafen their child just so that it'll be "more like them."

      If a soldier came back from Iraq missing a leg, there's no way as a culture we would sit still as he took a saw and mutilated his child - amputated a leg - to make his child "more like him." And I don't see a single bit of difference between a man disabled by the loss of a limb and a person disabled by the loss of their hearing. Why on Earth would we allow parents to mutilate their children - regardless of whether its by surgery or by knowingly transmitting genetic, congenital disabilities - just to make children "more like them?"

      I mean, for fuck's sake, how far does "more like us" go? Is there nothing a parent should be allowed to inflict on their child to make them "more like them"?

      --
      I never have frustrations, the reason is, to wit:
      If at first I don't succeed, I quit!
    7. Re:Branching of the species? by servognome · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Just like my ADD was "just lazy and undisciplined"?
      TFA didn't seem to mention the particular condition that Jackson has, but I know autistic kids that have some socially unwelcome reactions to seemingly minor things. I think it has to do with their perceptual differences, what seems important to them seems unimportant to us and vice versa.
      So what if there is a genetic "excuse." Most people have problems, and but are able to overcome them to integrate better into society.
      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    8. Re:Branching of the species? by Eternauta3k · · Score: 1

      You don't know if by selecting the blue-eyed prebabies you're also passing on some genetic disease (we can't detect all of them). The point of sexual reproduction is having diversity and trying to keep the nasty genes away from each other.

      --
      Yeah. Would you choose a neurosurgeon who pokes around people's brains in his spare time? I wouldn't.
    9. Re:Branching of the species? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why on Earth would we allow parents to mutilate their children - regardless of whether its by surgery or by knowingly transmitting genetic, congenital disabilities

      So then people with genetic defects should be sterilized? Or maybe all embryos should have to undergo screening before being allowed to be carried to term? Where is the line between "broken" and below average? Should stupid/ugly/criminal people be allowed to breed?
      Yes I'm taking your line of thought to an extreme. But that line of thought does require that some people are labeled "genetically deficient" and once you have that label it's placement becomes a very slippery dangerous thing. I agree that purposefully deaf kids is kinda fucked up, but I also think that allowing welfare mothers to have more than one child is fucked up. Hey, as long as we are drawing a line between worth breeding/not-worth breeding, I'm gonna set the line pretty high.

    10. Re:Branching of the species? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Forcing people to 'overcome' and 'integrate' better into society has caused a lot of heartache and pain for a lot of families. Suicide rates of developmental disorders, especially high-functional autism and neurological disorders that surface in mid-to-late teens are quite high -- while there are attempts at inclusion and accommodation in academic environments, running into uninformed individuals who assume that the patient is 'not trying hard enough' is incredibly discouraging. Not to mention parents who are clueless what is occurring, assume that the child is attempting to rebel, feel that it was their poor parenting/supervision in past and turn the household into an emotionally and psychologically abusive atmosphere, trapping the child and not allowing them to develop essential coping skills, not having the resources to be able to simply leave and support themselves, further trapping them in future unless an outside organization steps in to provide assistance.

      All of this, from a person in the mall calling the parents lazy and the child undisciplined, rather than stopping to ask themselves whether it really is their business -- a child screaming is equally annoying as really loud obnoxious laughter, un-PC jokes in a family environment, or yelling down the aisle for your kid to come to the checkout, or talking at full volume on a cell phone. The difference is that the others are somewhat considered acceptable by the masses, while the screaming child is not, despite that the other 'socially accepted' behaviors might be causing the discomfort for the child that is causing them to scream.

      Issues with sensory integration are NOT fun at all to deal with -- having too much information flooding the body causes an extremely low threshold of being able to deal with things. Routines help make things tolerable, variation can make things overwhelming.

      While it seems ohsocool to outsiders to have incredibly sensitive hearing or sense of touch, it isn't fun at all when the incredibly sensitive hearing is subject to poor acoustic design in shopping centers with sound bombarding from all sides, or crowded places with people pushing past the body, itchy fabric, smells, etc.

    11. Re:Branching of the species? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Not likely.

      In 21st century USA, social isolation is not that extreme. Well maybe where you live--- but here in Southern California, you pretty much can't get more than a few blocks --at most, a few miles-- from people who are very different from you.

      The parents are in 'take care of my disabled child' mode. They aren't spreading a genetic variant; it's all they can do to ensure that the child they love gets adequate care. They may have 'normal' children as well, but I don't think the normal siblings are going to be seeking out disabled mates. If they take any action, they will avoid procreation entirely or avail themselves of DNA testing services.

      For the record, I used to work with autistic adults. As far as I know, not one of them was able to form a social bond that led to sex, much less parenthood.

    12. Re:Branching of the species? by lazy+genes · · Score: 0

      I for one would like to help these people.Where can I donate to this cause.Human rights need to elevate to a higher level.

    13. Re:Branching of the species? by tjones · · Score: 1

      As a parent, it sounds like Jackson is just another spoiled little brat, and he's acting that way because he has bad parents, not because of any genetic difference.
      It's obvious you know fuck all about autism and how autistics react to their routine being interrupted, yet have no problem laying it all at the feet of the parents. Do yourself a favor, STFU, STFD, and thank $DEITY that your child(ren) fall(s) within the range of "normal". That or just start marking your posts as "troll".
    14. Re:Branching of the species? by tjones · · Score: 1

      So what if there is a genetic "excuse." Most people have problems, and but are able to overcome them to integrate better into society.
      This bullshit gets labeled "insightful"?

      Some people have problems that are simply too severe to ever be "overcome". No one who functions at the level of a 7 year old, even when they are 35, will ever be able to "integrate better into society". And that's without other obvious physical handicaps.

    15. Re:Branching of the species? by Aladrin · · Score: 1

      If you say the same thing about the children having white skin, it's racism.

      I never said these people were broken. I never even implied it. You assumed it.

      So again, tell me how this isn't like racism? When white people don't want their children to have anything but white children, that's racism. When 'DNA X' people (of whatever difference) want their children's children to have that same trait, that's just genetic pride?

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    16. Re:Branching of the species? by Aladrin · · Score: 1

      There's a difference between preventing them from breeding and preventing them from purposefully making their unborn child disabled. If the child is born deaf, that's life. If the doctor purposefully chooses that the child will be born deaf, that's child abuse.

      Being deaf is -not- an advantage to the child. A hearing child can interract with the family in every way that a deaf child can and more. Last I checked, my parents -wanted- me to do better than them. This is merely an attempt to create a life of pain for the child just to please some whim of the parents.

      When that child is old enough to understand that it didn't -have- to be deaf, that its parents decided it would be unlike all the other children on purpose, it will cause a rift in the family that may never be repaired. It will color everything that child does from then on and they will think of all the opportunities their parents stole from them out of selfishness.

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    17. Re:Branching of the species? by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      mod parent rude troll

  18. social pressure by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

    I've often heard left-handedness attributed to development conditions in the womb, but is it suspected to be one of these random DNA mutations, or to some higher-level effect on the brain? I think that the genetic origin of handedness is greatly exaggerated.

    I used to hate being asked if I was right or left handed as a child. I'm not. I use both hands, you weird adults.
    Of course, I was taught to use only the right hand to write, so I'm right handed, but I often get "oh, you're left handed?" comments from people who see me use my left hand for mundane tasks (grabbing a folder on a desk at work, or holding a fork).
    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

    1. Re:social pressure by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      I think that the genetic origin of handedness is greatly exaggerated.

      After I started to develop RSI in my right hand I switched my mouse to the left which helped a lot. Since then I have found that I can do most things with my left and that I don't really have a strong right handed bias.

      But I have noticed that my brother's three year old son is very strongly right handed. Much more so than my son or myself. I just don't know if this is caused by genetics or learned behaviour.

    2. Re:social pressure by fluxrad · · Score: 1

      In my experience, most righties are strongly right handed like your nephew. You'll notice a much greater level of ambidextrous behavior in left handed people - generally this is because they were given free reign to figure out which hand they preferred for every-day tasks. Usually, the test is this: ask someone who's right handed to write a sentence with their left. Now do the opposite with a lefty. You'll find that the lefty can generally write far more legibly with their right hand than said righty with their left. The same is true for most tasks, keeping in mind that this is more of a generalization than a hard and fast rule.

      There are also lots of interesting circumstances around there in the older set (usually folks above 50) who were usually forced to use their right hands for tasks even if they were left handed. That really screwed people up.

      It's hard to say whether or not handedness is environmental or genetic - I lean towards environmental - but even if it is, I don't think we're talking about the way a child is raised ("No, timmy. Use your right hand!") but rather psychological factors that probably play a part. Hell, maybe some kids just pick and some kids don't.

      --
      "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
    3. Re:social pressure by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      So far as the brain is concerned, handedness is pretty structural, I think. I mean, you are talking about the dominant hemisphere after all. That's not something you just switch back and forth.

      Left-handedness runs in my family, has for generations. I am, my father was, my grandfather was (on both sides) although I'm the only lefty in my generation. It's not something you pick: it's intrinsic. As you correctly point out, attempts to "convert" left-handed people into righties not only do not work, but cause a host of social and psychological problems that last a lifetime. Fortunately I was born to a left-handed parent who point-blank refused any of that nonsense. Compared to some people I know whose parents felt that left-handedness carried too great a social stigma (for them, not their kids) and tried to force their children to be right-handers, I'm a hell of a lot better off.

      I'll admit though, I had one English instructor in high school that insisted that we use fountain pens. He couldn't have cared less what had we used, but if you've ever tried to write with a fountain pen with your left hand you'll know what I mean.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    4. Re:social pressure by timmarhy · · Score: 2, Insightful
      why would there be social stigma with being left handed? it's been several 100 years since we gave up wiping our assholes with our left hand, so it's not a hygene factor.

      i grew up with a few lefties as friends and they never received any flack for it, if anything it made them feel a bit special.

      was the 50's in america THAT fucked up?

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    5. Re:social pressure by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, although it was worse a few decades before. But I'm not just talking about America. Anti-left-hand bias is not uncommon in some parts of the world, I mean, just because we got over it doesn't mean that other peoples have. My girlfriend, for example, is a left-handed North African, and during her early childhood there was an ongoing battle between her parents as to whether she should be allowed to use her left hand to write. Her mother felt that there was something "wrong" with left-handedness, and did her best to discourage it whenever her father wasn't around. She still has some problems from that treatment to this day.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    6. Re:social pressure by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "You'll find that the lefty can generally write far more legibly with their right hand than said righty with their left."

      Perhaps because the lefties have already tried it many times when learning to write, I have never heard anyone say "No Timmy, use your left hand".

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    7. Re:social pressure by blind+monkey+3 · · Score: 1

      I used to use both hands too.... until my left hand caught me in a compromising position with my right hand.

      --
      BM3
    8. Re:social pressure by 0racle · · Score: 1

      Left-handedness is evil. It's a sign of the devil.

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    9. Re:social pressure by aproposofwhat · · Score: 1
      As a leftie, I wipe my arse with my right hand - it seems more logical to use the hand that does least for such a mundane task.

      And as an Asperger's person married to another Asperger's person, with an autistic stepson and his Asperger's twin, there's a lot of it about in my family!

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    10. Re:social pressure by fluxrad · · Score: 1

      Perhaps because the lefties have already tried it many times when learning to write

      I don't think that's necessarily true. I never tried actually writing for content with my right hand, even when I was learning to write the alphabet. I've always been a lefty. I was just always able to write pretty well with my right hand for whatever reason. Perhaps it's because, when learning to write, I had to visualize how to do what everyone else was doing with their right hand with my left.

      I have never heard anyone say "No Timmy, use your left hand".

      That was my point.

      --
      "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
    11. Re:social pressure by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "was the 50's in america THAT fucked up?"

      Don't know about the US but in Australia in the 60's a child who wrote with their left hand was either "lazy" or "not being taught correctly" but I think this had more to do with fountain pens than toilet paper.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  19. Re:Please help out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why? Some of them are even quite fun, especially since you can now upload images for billboards. Check it out: http://pussy666.myminicity.com/

  20. Re:Please help out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    parent is lying, like all minicity spammers.

  21. Re:Vive la difference - we all carry lethal allele by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

    There are ideas that sexual reproduction arose as a response to disease. Every individual having a different genetic combination slows down the effectiveness of any given strain. That's a good defense as a virus can mutate a lot quicker than larger organisms can.

  22. "genetically rare" by Chapter80 · · Score: 1

    genetically rare
    Uniqueness is very common. Almost everybody is!
    1. Re:"genetically rare" by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      I'm not!

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  23. Re:Please help out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what's myminicity? I've been seeing the links pop up by anonymous trolls, but never clicked on them. SFW?

  24. Eugenics is cute. by FatSean · · Score: 1

    These people are fools, but it will be amusing to see how their experiments work out.

    --
    Blar.
  25. Re:Please help out by digitalunity · · Score: 0

    I see them everywhere but never click on them. What exactly is myminicity?

    --
    You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
  26. Re:Please help out by nuzak · · Score: 2, Informative

    Yeah, it's safe. It's basically like a web-based simcity, and overall looks like a cool fun game concept. But apparently they have some kind of "affiliate program" or whatever that pays you by the page hit, so everyone is spamming them all over the intertubes, pissing everyone off, and myminicity isn't doing a thing about it (hell they created the problem in the first place). Supposedly it's against their TOS, but hey rule #1 about spammers. So now I pretty much wait for them to go out of business, and welcome any suggestions on how to hurry that along.

    --
    Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
  27. More than Human by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See More than Human by Theodore Sturgeon

  28. Suprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just another way for people to divide themselves, adding to the list of race, religion etc. Does seem a bit wacky, like tall/short people only hanging around with each other, or picking friends based on hair/eye color.

  29. Re:Vive la difference - we all carry lethal allele by BotnetZombie · · Score: 1

    We all carry lethal alleles? Speak for yourself buddy, I have none of those. Btw, no matter where I look on the interwebs, I simply cannot find a community for my kind. Wont someone please think of the zombies?

  30. Re:Please help out by Torvaun · · Score: 1

    Someone mentioned clickbotting the minicity links to get those cities shut down for fraud.

    --
    I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
  31. New by skeftomai · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I am NOT a creationist; just wondering...

    It turns out that many of them have small deletions or duplications of DNA.

    I would call these new sequences of DNA, but, what about insertions? Should "new" nucleotides have been found as well?

    1. Re:New by skeftomai · · Score: 1

      damnit...the title should have read something like "Insertions." I'll probably just post again...

    2. Re:New by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      I would call these new sequences of DNA, but, what about insertions? Should "new" nucleotides have been found as well?

      Why limit it to just INSERT, UPDATE, and DELETE? How about a nice Cartesian JOIN? So what if the guy has 32 arms. Just try to dribble past him on the court.

    3. Re:New by funaho · · Score: 1

      I wonder what you'd get from a genetic OUTER JOIN? :)

  32. Deletions, duplications....any insertions? by skeftomai · · Score: 1

    (I already posted this, but I F-ed up the post title...)

    I am NOT a creationist; just wondering...

    It turns out that many of them have small deletions or duplications of DNA.

    I would call these new sequences of DNA, but, what about insertions? Shouldn't "new" nucleotides occasionally have been found as well?

    1. Re:Deletions, duplications....any insertions? by tloh · · Score: 1

      I would call these new sequences of DNA... Be careful how you talk about these things. You run the risk of getting trapped in semantic gibberish. How do *you* intend to use this term, "new sequences of DNA"? Geneticist have developed very precise language to describe the features they encounter in the course of doing their research. I'm sure you have good intentions born out of genuine curiosity in voicing a comment. But to ask a meaningful question, on must try to converse with the same terminology.

      ...what about insertions? There exists a feature called a transposon , also known as a "jumping gene" that has the curious ability to move around to different places in the organism's genome. Is this the kind of "insertion" you were thinking about? Discovery of this feature earned Barbara McClintock a Nobel Prize in 1983.

      Shouldn't "new" nucleotides occasionally have been found as well? If you mean "new" nucleotides by genetic information that just comes out of thin air, then the answer is probably no. I apologize if I misunderstand you. Admittedly, this seems like a attempt by me to construct a "straw man argument", but this is one of the biggest misconceptions people have about how evolution works. The important thing to remember is, it (evolution) MUST HAVE SOMETHING TO WORK ON. In other words, mutation doesn't mutate thin air, there has to be genetic material to undergo mutation. An organism doesn't gain a cool new trait as a result of some previously non-existent DNA suddenly materializing within the genome. Often, (but by no means always) new useful features arise as a consequence of mutations in one of several copies of the same gene. The new feature confers some useful function that is different from the function of the pre-mutated gene. But because there are other copies of the old gene around, no (critical/useful) function is lost to the organism. Sometimes, however, genetic material may come from outside sources. Some viruses and bacterias are good examples. A retrovirus like HIV will actually insert it's own DNA directly into the chromosomes in your cells with special DNA splicing proteins. In a sense, the added virus DNA sequence can be considered "new" nucleotides. But again, it all depends on how you talk about it.
      --
      Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
  33. Homo solus by MellowTigger · · Score: 1, Interesting
    Coincidentally, I have just in the last few weeks put up a webpage explaining my thoughts about autism as the trait list of a potential new species. Homo solus, solitary man.

    The human variant that I think is nearly ready for consideration as a new species is still too diverse, but the generalizations that can be made about them are highly suggestive. On average, in gross over-generalization, this group...
    • has a larger skull size than the typical form;
    • achieves its maximum skull size a full decade before the typical human skull does;
    • differs not just in skull size but also in brain organization, showing changes in several brain structures;
    • responds differently (usually over-sensitive) to all manner of physical stimuli: sound, texture, light, odor, taste;
    • adheres to unusual dietary standards, sometimes with profound alteration in diet necessary to accomodate healthy digestion;
    • shows an unusual social instinct, actively avoiding crowds and seeking isolated or sequestered environments;
    • rarely displays command of deceptive behavior, instead the individuals often use a single standard for all social engagements (frequently ignoring protocols of social strata or personal boundary);
    • sometimes displays assortative mating, with parents possessing less-exaggerated qualities producing children of more pronounced qualities;
    • possesses epigentic differences spanning many chromosomes and sites; and
    • possesses genetic differences spanning many chromosomes and sites.
    If we were talking about some animal other than humans, wouldn't all of these changes (the behavioral and skeletal and biological all taken together) suggest a new species? So when we talk about humans, why suddenly change standards? I think it's time to stop talking of autism as defect but instead as prospective evolutionary path.
    http://home.earthlink.net/~mellowtigger/evolution.html
    1. Re:Homo solus by dogugotw · · Score: 1

      Evolution requires that breeding populations exist in isolation for a long enough period of time that the groups diverge. A new species exists when individuals from the separated populations either cannot breed (cats and dogs) or, if they breed, produce only sterile offspring (horses and donkeys).

      Just because a group is genetically different, does NOT mean they can or will form a new species.

      What you suggest requires that individuals with autism breed ONLY with others having autism for, ohhhhh, a few million years.

      Sorry but your theory as described is, in fact, a quack concept.

    2. Re:Homo solus by Chmcginn · · Score: 1

      What you suggest requires that individuals with autism breed ONLY with others having autism for, ohhhhh, a few million years.
      Considering that he seemed to be talking about directed breeding, I'd say the timescale would be closer to that for domesticating animals - a few thousand generations, instead of a few hundred thousand. Of course, that would depend on a very particular mindset of the people involved.

      Other than that, you're right.

      --
      Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
    3. Re:Homo solus by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 1

      Lions and tigers are different species. They *can* breed, but they cannot produce fertile young, afaik.

      A lion will not give birth to a tiger after mating with another lion. A lion may give birth to a deformed or striped lion, but it will be a lion nonetheless.

      Anything that is the product of two humans mating will be a human.

      Stop the 'different species' nonsense. It just makes it easier for society to dehumanize people with disabilities.

      -b

      --
      No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
    4. Re:Homo solus by Telecommando · · Score: 1

      Lions and tigers are different species. They *can* breed, but they cannot produce fertile young, afaik.

      Not true. Male hybrids are generally considered infertile but it has not been conclusively proven. There's just not enough examples to test.

      Combinations that have been seen:

      Tiger(M) + Lion(F) = Tigon

      Lion(M) + Tiger(F) = Liger

      Tiger(M) + Tigon(F) = Ti-Tigon

      Lion(M) + Tigon(F) = Li-Tigon

      Tiger(M) + Liger(F) = Ti-Liger

      Lion(M) + Liger(F) = Li-Liger

      Ligers and their offspring are prone to gigantism and early death from cancer. Tigons are prone to dwarfism and deafness. All the hybrids can have abnormalities that affect their health and shorten their lives, but many seem unaffected and have relatively normal lifespans and behavior.

      Some of this is from my fading memory, as I couldn't find a good example on the net. It's late, I'm tired and I'm not going to bother to search anymore.

      --
      Beta sux! Join the Slashcott! http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4760465&cid=46173047
    5. Re:Homo solus by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 1

      This is fascinating (and has driven me to research esoteric cats), but does not affect my rebuttal to the parent post. Unless a geneticist can prove me wrong, I still argue that new species do not spontaneously emerge from two normal, same-specied parents.

      Where would you draw the line? A new species of human known for myopia, anti-social behavior, and poor hygiene (Homo/dottus)? A new species of short people (Homo homunculus)? A species of dumbasses (Homo stupere)?

      My original point is that it is wrong to categorize humans based on natural and unavoidable genetic differences. History has shown us that it is indeed a slippery slope towards eugenics and genocide- even if the parent's post was probably well intentioned.

      -b

      --
      No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
    6. Re:Homo solus by dogugotw · · Score: 1

      Good point; I missed the directed breeding bit (it all turned into blah blah after a few paragraphs) but I'm not sure I agree.

      We have many breeds of dogs and all of them can still interbreed so we have not seen speciation.

      Granted, breeding dogs has not been directed at creating new species and dogs have only been around for 15,000 years or so (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog#Ancestry_and_history_of_domestication) so we may just be looking at an issue of improper focus and lack of time. It would be interesting to see how long it would take to create a new species of canid using only selective breeding.

    7. Re:Homo solus by Zibblsnrt · · Score: 1

      It just makes it easier for society to dehumanize people with disabilities

      Or without them, sometimes...

      But yeah, the "homo solus" thing just sounds like more "indigo child" bullshit.

      --
      "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
    8. Re:Homo solus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't believe this hasn't been modded funny. You can't be serious, can you?

      This is either rationalization, a self defeating intellectual exercise, or a lame attempt to create a custom class for an RPG. I can't believe anybody would actually want to classify themselves as a new species. Are people who do this misanthropic? Elitist? Or just looking for a way to help themselves cope with what society deems negative, a "disability?"

      I will never understand the human capacity of some to create these myriad artificial divisions between what was once a healthy social body. Has anyone ever thought that perhaps the Homo Solus, or any other minority, fringe, freak feels this way in part b/c they simply want to feel this way on some level? I know my fair share of self diagnosed aspies, retarded social deviants, and elitist homo superiors, and most of them have a deep seated need to define themselves as different. Then the other shoe drops and they blog about how isolated and lonely they are. Is it me? Cos something just seems moronic about that.

  34. Howard family? by Stiletto · · Score: 2, Funny

    So where's the Howard family's web site?

    1. Re:Howard family? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Do you have eight living great-grandparents? If so, they may be contacting you. Otherwise...they're a bit...reclusive.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    2. Re:Howard family? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hmmm... Why would they be interested in people whose previous generations have a tendency to become parents while still teenagers?

    3. Re:Howard family? by kent_eh · · Score: 1

      That's the first thing that popped into my mind when I read the summary.

      I wonder what Lazarus Long would have to say about this?

      --

      ---
      "I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
  35. Gattaca movie by __aaqvdr516 · · Score: 1

    The movie Gattaca deals with the issue of profiling based on DNA. If you haven't seen it I highly recommend it. Does anyone else know of other movies that deal with DNA profiling?

    1. Re:Gattaca movie by tgd · · Score: 1

      I just watched a video this morning of a woman profiling DNA from what seemed like 20 guys, does that count?

    2. Re:Gattaca movie by tenco · · Score: 1

      Species 1-3?

  36. Just consider... by Chmcginn · · Score: 1

    whose fault it may be?

    --
    Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
  37. Re:Please help out by Chmcginn · · Score: 4, Funny
    No, no, no.

    They have telekinetic mutant powers.

    Hah, call me off-topic now!

    --
    Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
  38. Be careful by monkaru · · Score: 1

    Often, genetic anomalies are used by the simply mean to carry out their worst crimes. For example: blonde hair and blues eyes, which I have because of my Norwegian ancestory - I'm SO white - is a recessive gene similar to the recessive gene that makes seal point Siamese cats look the way they do. For some inexplicable reason a bunch of mostly dark haired and brown eyed people who called themselves NAZI wanted to be like me. WTF? They wanted it so bad they killed millions and did the most horrible things to my family. When Quisling gave up Norway to them the NAZI decided to make their dream of perfect blue eyed blondeness come true. They did it by going around to all of the villages and picked out the most perfectly blonde girls between 12 and 16. The girls were taken to a camp and "bred" with the NAZI elite to create an "Arayan Super Race". When the Allies retook Norway the NAZI decided to hide their crime by "liquidating" the remaining girls. Of the 82 girls taken from my families village none came home including 2 of my aunties. When someone starts talking about "genetic communities" watch like a hawk and never-ever trust them. My family learned that the hard way.

  39. Re:Please help out by Nazlfrag · · Score: 1

    They should get some sort of Slashdot Troll of the Year award. Not even tubgirl, lemonparty and goatse combined has ever produced this level of outrage. Just let them get modded into oblivion and stop feeding the trolls!

  40. forgot to add a detail...... by tloh · · Score: 1

    ...then the answer is probably no. An exception to this is a type of mutation called a "point insertion". It is a type of mistake that can happen during DNA replication where one (very VERY rarely more than one) extra nucleotide gets shuffled into a sequence as it is being constructed from a parent template. This has an effect called a "frame shift". The way it normally works, the genetic code consists of 3-letter "words" that describe how to string together a bunch of amino acids to form the protein building block of life. A "frame shift" corrupts the "sentence" those "words" form. Whee nhuman srea d ama-lforme dsentenc, we can usually figure out the correct meaning, but the molecular processes happening in our cells can't always handle it correctly and this sometimes causes problems.
    --
    Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
  41. Australian "small penis" anti-speeding ad by brindafella · · Score: 1

    There's a very successful series of TV and print advertisements running in the Australian state of New South Wales. The premise is that everyone else realises that a speeding and reckless young male driver (aka: hoon or yobbo) just does not understand how silly and "inadequate" they make themselves look. These others share among themselves the wiggling of the 'pinkie' ('little') finger when they see such behaviour. The real pay-off is when one of the male passengers in a recklessly driven car wiggles the pinkie to a fellow passenger, and his mate -- the driver -- sees it happen in the mirror, and is shamed.

    See an article about the ads in the Sydney Morning Herald of 25 June 2007. Here's a link to the ads at the NSW Roads and Traffic Authority web site.

    There is also an accompanying 15-second "viral" internet ad that offers "speedsters" an "xtra xtra small" condom.

    --
    Looking at space, radio, science and computing from a 'down-under' amateur enthusiast perspective.
    1. Re:Australian "small penis" anti-speeding ad by yoder · · Score: 1

      That is great! Love it. We desperately need those ads here in the states.

      --
      "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act!" -- George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair)
    2. Re:Australian "small penis" anti-speeding ad by brindafella · · Score: 1

      Right glad am I that you enjoyed it!

      And, your (Score:2) versus my original post's (Score:1) just shows that some moderators have a different view of the world to when I moderate. :-) ... really! :-)

      --
      Looking at space, radio, science and computing from a 'down-under' amateur enthusiast perspective.
    3. Re:Australian "small penis" anti-speeding ad by brindafella · · Score: 1

      Right glad am I that you enjoyed it!

      And, your (Score:2), versus my original post's (Score:1), just shows that some moderators have a different view of the world than when I moderate. :-) ... really! :-)

      The 'pinkie' ads have become part of social conversation. It only needs two people to see something really silly going on, typically by a young(ish) man, and someone does the 'pinkie'. The ads also gave permission for men to disapprove of other men's behaviour, and even in front of women! I did the 'pinkie' to a woman the other day when we saw some stupid behaviour: We both appreciated that the other had disapproved.

      Spread the word!

      --
      Looking at space, radio, science and computing from a 'down-under' amateur enthusiast perspective.
  42. My son has Beckwith Wiedemann Syndrome (BWS) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    BWS is a rare overgrowth disorder that our son was diagnosed with at birth.

    The yahoo group, web sites and free DVD were extremely valuable in helping us as parents to understand and deal with the condition.

    Being a geek, I wanted to understand and be able to communicate in all of the relevant medical-technical terms:

    The diagnosis symptoms were hemihypertophy (right), neo-natal hypoglycemia and macrosomia (95+ percentile).

    A genetic study that determined that my son has paternal UPD of 11p15 with mosaicism.

    Our son is on a quarterly screening protocol of AFP and abdominal ultrasound for hepatoblastoma and wilms tumors.

  43. Well, I've been trying ... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

    for years to get doctors to recognize my telekinesis as a real medical condition in need of treatment, but they all just mumble something about "ingrates" and "gifts" and send me away.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  44. Re:Vive la difference - we all carry lethal allele by ardle · · Score: 1

    There are ideas that sexual reproduction arose as a response to disease. The way I look at it, sexual reproduction has survived disease ;-)
    Another way to look at it might be that sexual reproduction is currently outperforming disease - on earth, at least. Not sure what metric to use for "performance" tho :-)

    What I'm getting at is the idea that - in keeping with the principles of natural selection - many (the majority? Or the majority by mass, if not head count? I Am Not A Biologist :-) of the species that have thus far survived the effects of disease reproduce sexually.
    If you think about it, sexual reproduction is a good strategy for surviving a wide range of natural disasters (in fact, reproduction is a good way of surviving natural disasters: if there is only one of you, the chance of you surviving from, say 2 billion years ago until today is pretty small :-). It requires more than one participant but this is only a handicap if numbers are extremely low after a disaster (and still requires some bad luck, i.e. not being able to find an organism to reproduce with - which wouldn't be a problem with a new species, since they would all be co-located).
    Since sexual reproduction is at worst a power-of-two less efficient than asexual reproduction (gestation times, multiplcity of offspring, etc., neglected), in the long run (i.e. the lifetime of planet earth and all obstacles that life has overcome here) we can probably expect a lot of sex :-)
  45. You people are weak. by Qwaniton · · Score: 1

    And high UID. Mod down and go on your way. Plus, the dent is marginal compared to an old-school (pah) GNAA crapflood.

  46. Witness... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    Witness the downside to evolution. First radiation and the occasional error scoured the dynamic "gradient descent space" of the environment. Then sexual reproduction found out it could scour it much faster. Magnitudes faster, as features were slightly rescrambled with each child of each generation.

    But this means trying new possibilities, and guess what? Many are slightly harmful, which is to say, not useful in this environment.

    Fortunately, the human mind will learn to repair the harm of these variations, or even the genetics themselves, long before the "average" gene collapses into a blob living on a table, cared for by a few lucky individuals and their robots.

    Some alive reading this may live long enough to see children born with "Einstein's" brain genetics, or even Newton's, given his body is still entombed in Westminster Abbey.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  47. Imagine a world where the fetus is a person... by clonan · · Score: 1

    Lets put forward a few truths...

    #1 The US is probably the most litigious society in history. People rely on the law and courts rather than tradition to solve disputes.

    #2 As a species we have one of the highest miscarrige rates on the planet greater than 50% of conceptions although most of the time the mother doesn't realize it.

    #3 We can now but over the counter tests for pregnancy that can detect the hormonal shift at 5 days.

    Now you have a young couple who find they are pregnant. Mom accidentally walks through smoke and later miscarries. Mom and Dad breakup...Dad has the mom arriseted for manslaughter etc.

    The reason the bible is pro-choice is because God knows that as a species we aren't stable until after birth and even then it was a tossup till about age 2 until very recently.

  48. Re:Please help out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can we just censor slashdot?

    There, fixed that for ya.