• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo

Some videos that opened my window a little bit.

rna dna folding

  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 YOLF

  • Member
  • 8,233 posts
  • 1,166
  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 09 March 2017 - 08:15 PM


Some Veritasium titles had my curiosity piqued and I wound up learning some very relevant things that sent me for spin and brought me back. Thought I'd share. The second one has more to do with genetics, but watching the first one gave me a perspective:

 

 

 

So my first thoughts after watching the about women being stripy was that our DNA modifications were too complex to unravel and that our generation was fated to always remain somewhat aged and never be perfectly young. Then, after a little bit I realized there was a solution and the "form determines function" meme would again help to uncomplicate things as we can restore form and thus the function of DNA given this understanding and while we might not get perfect results, we would survive, and find perfection over time. The question is, how long will it take to grow young again? How fast will the science move?

 

My next thoughts were that we already had some of what we need to accelerate it. A few years ago, we started talking about a map of our metabolism, so why not take that and use that approach into affecting genetics and determine ahead of time what the sequence of our DNA is likely to look like, or how it would look if it were functioning at it's best and set a goal? The sequence and composition of our DNA can be described by math models and using that we can theorize what sequence and form would be most stable and produce the most youth. The problem is likely to be far less complex than we might think at the outset too as each cell group has a different function and a similar form. Thus, it's actually easier than we might think and we're quite possibly closer than we imagine. 

 

My question now is... as it usually is... why isn't some computer spitting out the answer and process we need to accomplish this? What's holding us back from getting this done? Some things feel haphazard while I imagine they can and must be following a plan that is beyond explaining in an easy to digest form. So much of what we think, do and understand would take more time to explain than to do... 



#2 Keizo

  • Guest
  • 479 posts
  • 31
  • Location:Sweden
  • NO

Posted 10 March 2017 - 07:06 AM

Steve Hsu is a man very interested in the genetics of intelligence, and he states that the only thing required to be able to determine with some sufficiency the likely intelligence of the unborn is enough genomes with good data on their phenotype, and from there you could start doing embryo selection to increase the IQ of subsequent generations. I believe the way he approaches this problem is not at all so much trying to look at individual genes and so forth, but rather from a mathematical/statistical perspective, and after all if intelligence involves a great many genes with very little effect on their own it doesn't seem feasible to try and figure out things from anything but a birds-eye perspective.

His problem in this seems to be very practical: difficulty getting enough genomes. He's been saying for a while that this capability to increase IQ in this way is just a few years ahead.

 

I don't know how the genetics of aging would compare, maybe it is a lot more complicated with greater variability in the effect of individual genes and more chaotic influences from the environment/lifestyles, but either way one can always use more or less indirect methods of predicting phenotype. If you want your children to live longer than average then go see and inspect your potential partners parents beforehand and make an estimation of the off-spring outcome.

 

'



Click HERE to rent this GENETICS advertising spot to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#3 YOLF

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • 8,233 posts
  • 1,166
  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 10 March 2017 - 06:10 PM

Steve Hsu is a man very interested in the genetics of intelligence, and he states that the only thing required to be able to determine with some sufficiency the likely intelligence of the unborn is enough genomes with good data on their phenotype, and from there you could start doing embryo selection to increase the IQ of subsequent generations. I believe the way he approaches this problem is not at all so much trying to look at individual genes and so forth, but rather from a mathematical/statistical perspective, and after all if intelligence involves a great many genes with very little effect on their own it doesn't seem feasible to try and figure out things from anything but a birds-eye perspective.

His problem in this seems to be very practical: difficulty getting enough genomes. He's been saying for a while that this capability to increase IQ in this way is just a few years ahead.

 

I don't know how the genetics of aging would compare, maybe it is a lot more complicated with greater variability in the effect of individual genes and more chaotic influences from the environment/lifestyles, but either way one can always use more or less indirect methods of predicting phenotype. If you want your children to live longer than average then go see and inspect your potential partners parents beforehand and make an estimation of the off-spring outcome.

 

'

I wasn't speaking purely of intelligence, more health and lifespan, but gene therapy and design is the way to go imo, I guess selection is ok in the mean time if you plan to redesign the rest for bigger and better when possible, but I wouldn't go throwing any away. I think there is a moral imperative for everyone to have the fruits of this for a better, more productive world. I guess I can see where he's going with his view of intelligence genetics, not a bad strategy, it's definitely friendly and won't leave much if anything undiscovered. Do you think he'd share his methods or add our mission to his?

 

Anyways, another interesting thing would be measuring the relative aging of stripes in women and seeing if we could identify some longevity genes from them. I have a feeling they could in some cases get easier to see as they get older.

 

And while I appreciate the fine detail the Hsu approach will/would yield, I want to go for the big gene therapies first to ensure that I stay as young as possible right now. That will provide the most people with the most benefits right now... though I can understand the complacence that might accompany getting the major solutions out right away. Am I to believe that we do have that computer spitting out those solutions and that we're now optimising the finer details for comparison while withholding the big stuff for fear of complacence? 



#4 Keizo

  • Guest
  • 479 posts
  • 31
  • Location:Sweden
  • NO

Posted 10 March 2017 - 08:31 PM

Steve has a blog at infoproc.blogspot.com so you might ask him stuff there or on youtube

He actually made this video some time ago, but he suggests a similar approach for other things than intelligence

 

As far as gene therapy I have no idea but I think one of the drawbacks of those solutions is you probably need a lot more testing and so forth to get approval. Whereas on the other hand you could simply grow a number of very tiny embryos in a lab, test their DNA, then select one for implantation that seems plausibly most fit and people would already be familiar and able to conceptualize the potential problems with this quite easily because it is really just the same natural process that always happens albeit tilted more strongly towards the particular direction of the parent's desire (and of course In-vitro fertilization and so forth is already being used today for some people to avoid certain specific disease), but if there is some sort of failure of knowledge in this process there isn't likely to be some massive unforeseen problem (you will just have a baby).


Edited by Keizo, 10 March 2017 - 09:28 PM.


Click HERE to rent this GENETICS advertising spot to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#5 YOLF

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • 8,233 posts
  • 1,166
  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 11 March 2017 - 01:41 AM

This is true, but then you have to wait for the the no. of samples to increase and cures won't come until you're dead. I think it's plausible to test by making cells and printing biology. Even printing embryos in animal models and then eventually humans. I prefer much different methods. 







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: rna, dna, folding

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users