This is completely wrong. It is used for everything! Formerly called Junk DNA by ignorant people, it is now called Regulatory DNA. It is the code that calls the function calls that is the gene DNA. That is why the field is called Genomics now and not Genetics.
The term Junk DNA is a laughing stock within the scientific community for ages now.
It was 'blank slate' and 'we are all the same under the skin' retards pushing for such an ignorant assumption.
We have known for a while now that essentially all non transcribing DNA is highly used as "regulator factors". This is the DNA that controls the transcribing DNA. You can think of the 'gene' DNA as function calls. The 'junk' DNA is the code that calls those function calls, where and when! It is the most important DNA in the end, as it controls the level of expression and timing of transcribing DNA, the whole LOGIC of the system.
They don't call it genetics any more for a reason. They realized how ignorant it was to only look at Genes. Now it is called genomics, as in whole genome is important!!!!!
Also, I noticed how you dropped the traditional, official definition of eugenics which says 'controlled breeding' and thus does not match my argument which calls for natural breeding. You instead are now using the bias wikipedia who's intent is to make anything anti-dysgenic sound like eugenics so as to shut down any discussion exposing the evil being done by the medial industrial complex. Thus you have just proved I am not a eugenicist as you originally claimed by the fact that you altered the definition of eugenics in order to continue your incorrect labeling of my argument.
> Your: I am dependent on evolution to cull the vulnerable so that future generations are immune to each disease naturally, matches pretty well with Wikipedia's: advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a population, from where I'm standing.
So you are calling evolution eugenic? That is Interesting, but it is again irrelevant regarding my original point.
And sorry for the typo in my previous message. I meant irrelevant: having no bearing on or connection with the subject at issue.
Strange that after pasting those definitions which clearly show that what I am arguing for is not eugenics you still think otherwise. As you can see the definition is about using controlled breeding and artificial practices. Essentially the opposite of what I am advocating for. I am saying that we must stop messing with breeding using artificial things such as legal mandates enforcing vaccination.
dysgenic: pertaining to or causing degeneration in the offspring produced.
Laws enforcing vaccinations, mandated medical intervention, which is what the original article is very clearly meant to be justification for, does just that.
I am against that, thus I am an anti-dysgenicist.
You are not bringing any arguments to this discussion. You have not countered anything I have said. Your only tactic is to wrongly call my arguments eugenic, which is not only wrong, but irreverent.
By getting vaccinated, I am dependent on everyone injecting poison into their blood just to stay alive.
By not getting vaccinated, I am dependent on evolution to cull the vulnerable so that future generations are immune to each disease naturally without having to inject countless cocktails of poison, genetically modified crap, adjuvents, and toxic preservatives into our bloodstream.
Either we can have the natural lottery of the odd individual be destine to die, or we can intervene and ensure that our gene pool continues to degenerate to the point that everyone is completely dependent on the medical industrial complex simply to survive.
It is obvious to me which path has more suffering and dependence. Vaccines, it does the medical industrial complex good!
By getting vaccinated, I am dependent on everyone injecting poison into their blood just to stay alive.
By not getting vaccinated, I am dependent on evolution to cull the vulnerable so that future generations are immune to each disease naturally without having to inject countless cocktails of poison, genetically modified crap, adjuvents, and toxic preservatives into our bloodstream.
Either we can have the natural lottery of the odd individual be destine to die, or we can intervene and ensure that our gene pool continues to degenerate to the point that everyone is completely dependent on the medical industrial complex simply to survive.
It is obvious to me which path has more suffering and dependence. Vaccines, it does the medical industrial complex good.
Slashdot Mirror
This is completely wrong. It is used for everything! Formerly called Junk DNA by ignorant people, it is now called Regulatory DNA. It is the code that calls the function calls that is the gene DNA. That is why the field is called Genomics now and not Genetics.
The term Junk DNA is a laughing stock within the scientific community for ages now.
It was 'blank slate' and 'we are all the same under the skin' retards pushing for such an ignorant assumption.
We have known for a while now that essentially all non transcribing DNA is highly used as "regulator factors". This is the DNA that controls the transcribing DNA. You can think of the 'gene' DNA as function calls. The 'junk' DNA is the code that calls those function calls, where and when! It is the most important DNA in the end, as it controls the level of expression and timing of transcribing DNA, the whole LOGIC of the system.
They don't call it genetics any more for a reason. They realized how ignorant it was to only look at Genes. Now it is called genomics, as in whole genome is important!!!!!
It looks like this:
morphis://3syweaeb7xwm4q3hxfp9w4nynhcnuob6
See:
http://morph.is/description.ht...
http://morph.is/v0.1
http://reddit.com/r/morphis
Sorry, I'm a little late releasing, but you can find the git clone link in the latest announcement on /r/morphis.
It is known to have worked out great for immunity, just like I originally said. Thanks for asking.
It even helped us beyond the original diseases:
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050307/full/news050307-15.html
Also, I noticed how you dropped the traditional, official definition of eugenics which says 'controlled breeding' and thus does not match my argument which calls for natural breeding. You instead are now using the bias wikipedia who's intent is to make anything anti-dysgenic sound like eugenics so as to shut down any discussion exposing the evil being done by the medial industrial complex. Thus you have just proved I am not a eugenicist as you originally claimed by the fact that you altered the definition of eugenics in order to continue your incorrect labeling of my argument.
> Your: I am dependent on evolution to cull the vulnerable so that future generations are immune to each disease naturally, matches pretty well with Wikipedia's: advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a population, from where I'm standing.
So you are calling evolution eugenic? That is Interesting, but it is again irrelevant regarding my original point.
And sorry for the typo in my previous message. I meant irrelevant: having no bearing on or connection with the subject at issue.
Strange that after pasting those definitions which clearly show that what I am arguing for is not eugenics you still think otherwise. As you can see the definition is about using controlled breeding and artificial practices. Essentially the opposite of what I am advocating for. I am saying that we must stop messing with breeding using artificial things such as legal mandates enforcing vaccination.
dysgenic: pertaining to or causing degeneration in the offspring produced.
Laws enforcing vaccinations, mandated medical intervention, which is what the original article is very clearly meant to be justification for, does just that.
I am against that, thus I am an anti-dysgenicist.
You are not bringing any arguments to this discussion. You have not countered anything I have said. Your only tactic is to wrongly call my arguments eugenic, which is not only wrong, but irreverent.
He is not saying to artificially select people.
What he is saying can only be called anti-dysgenicist.
By getting vaccinated, I am dependent on everyone injecting poison into their blood just to stay alive.
By not getting vaccinated, I am dependent on evolution to cull the vulnerable so that future generations are immune to each disease naturally without having to inject countless cocktails of poison, genetically modified crap, adjuvents, and toxic preservatives into our bloodstream.
Either we can have the natural lottery of the odd individual be destine to die, or we can intervene and ensure that our gene pool continues to degenerate to the point that everyone is completely dependent on the medical industrial complex simply to survive.
It is obvious to me which path has more suffering and dependence. Vaccines, it does the medical industrial complex good!
By getting vaccinated, I am dependent on everyone injecting poison into their blood just to stay alive.
By not getting vaccinated, I am dependent on evolution to cull the vulnerable so that future generations are immune to each disease naturally without having to inject countless cocktails of poison, genetically modified crap, adjuvents, and toxic preservatives into our bloodstream.
Either we can have the natural lottery of the odd individual be destine to die, or we can intervene and ensure that our gene pool continues to degenerate to the point that everyone is completely dependent on the medical industrial complex simply to survive.
It is obvious to me which path has more suffering and dependence. Vaccines, it does the medical industrial complex good.