Is full genetic engineering, to the point where we make complete

>>9153488
take any junior or senior level biology class and find out

>>9153488
It's very possible just limited by technology at the moment.

>>9153528
How do you know that though? We haven't attempted or studied anything near the level of what I'm talking about yet.
>>9153503
That doesn't help, can you offer some explanations or ideas given in those classes?

>>9153488
The point of genetic engineering is to get to the level of pre-flood technology and recreate the Nephilim.

Seriously, some people believe that.

>>9153488
It would not be possible, at this point in time, to create a human genome from scratch like you are suggesting. even changing large sections of the genome is likely to create an inviable organism.
Genomics is not super well understood. mechanisms like epigenetics make it hard to find the true function of many genes. the amount of transcription factors and post transcriptional and translational editing that goes into the genetic code before turning into correctly folded proteins to contribute in the pathway.
but we do have the technology to express large proteins in model eukaryotes, sometimes yeast or c. elegans. this 'cut and paste' method of genetics, provided by the revolutionary enzyme crispr, gives geneticists a great tool to study the genome and eventually our knowledge will be good enough to edit genomes in the way you're describing. just dont hold your breath.

>>9155000
Have you heard about the "human genome: write" proposed by george church? Is that going to help?

>>9155042
I just read this http://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i28/Writing-human-genome.html
article on the subject. those universities were getting to about 1000 bases max and the human genome is about 3 billion bases long soooooo

>>9155042
>>9155127
Can some one explain the point of writing a genome from scratch if you can just edit one?

>>9153488
I'm scared of what women will do if they'll be allowed to select the traits.

>>9155132
basically nothing. but it also can be something lamens can get behind, start funding, and it can lead to advances in techniques within the field.

What the fuck do people mean when they say that genome editing is risky (for humans)? Like the options are either you make a person with the trait you wanted, or it's an inviable embryo, or you get a retard that you can have put down.

>>9155132
just to see if you can really. but yea what you're describing is actually what is happening with yeast. google Artificial Yeast Chromosome project

>>9155187
>you make a person with the trait you wanted
A few caveats here:
1. If the trait becomes highly dominant because we give everyone it, we may have higher susceptibility to disease since there is a smaller difference between individuals
2. Editing is far from perfect, you could add the trait but also knock out something that is only required at age 25 and then you start bleeding out of every orifice till you die. That gene would be passed on by young pregnancy and now life expectancy is shite
3. other shit like ethics etc

>>9155127
Actually they're at a few millions right now