Genetic Disorders And Diseases

[Megajasbell]

Okay guys lets face it.. the us goverment is not that advanced..;)

[damnmyxbf]

im watching this for a class.... but i dont get it all... O.o''''

[ndrthrdr1]

Click Like on the video.  Let's drown out the creationist vote bot attack!

[suscribebelow]

I like the Gattaca video in the end

[kelbykross1]

nah, it is all demons. and sin.

my jeans have nothing to do with it!

[uvegtigris2010]

who knows if we have the right healing-effect after manipulation or influence genetics? its probably healed for a while or it's look like so. BUT, (!) if someone had a genetic issue and he may b got healed his or her children still will have the same issue probably.... or a similar issue.... the nature takes the week living beings not only for fun away..... in the nature and between animals only the strongest one supposed to give his genetic into the future....

[Primalxbeast]

The children of poor people are already at a disadvantage with less access to higher education and health care. We already ration health care. Who do you think would would be able to get the eugentics upgrades for their children? Only the super rich. The gap between the poor and the rich would become an uncrossable chasm. Sure, check for genetic defects, but no upgrades unless they're for everybody. Seniors wouldn't be able to compete for jobs either.

[killerboyfoolz]

I want my child to grow up healthy and happy... GATTACA ftw~

[TheSuperMolman]

.... HOLY SHIT THIS STUFF IS FUCKING SCARY!!!

[rehetbutler]

borrow some lines from Gattica? great episode

[TheGuineagirl101]

Learning about genetics and the wonder of the human body is one of the things that brought me closer to God; although I don't understand why people must stuff with these illnesses, including myself--nobody told us life would be perfect! I believe that God have gifted some people with the minds to one day treat and even cure genetic and non-genetic diseases. Science is a beautiful thing and I don't get all the carping between those of us who believe in God and those who don't-- DNA is cool!

[xAngelicdruidx]

This is why Im waiting until I'm older and have more knowledge about my health before I have a child. I dont want to pass anything to my kid, I think it'd be an incredibly selfish thing to do if I had a child knowing I'd pass the illness to them. Theres so many kids in need of a good home so why does it matter so much that I myself have to pop them out????? All you old people confuse me with your selfishly weird thoughts and opinions....

[kaminoneh]

@xAngelicdruidx

I say the same thing. I'm 21 years old and laugh at women who cry over not having a child. They go to church, pray to a god, beg to get pregnant. I ask these women, whats the point of bringing another burden on this planet when there are so many children in need for shelter, food and love?

Selfish bitches.

[xAngelicdruidx]

@kaminoneh Yeah, they spout off that the children are most important yet they turn a blind eye to all the masses of home-less/parent-less children. What makes me even more mad is that they try to refuse gay couples from providing a good home for kids who probably have no other chance at a good life other than that. There's so many things I dislike about these older generations that I'm almost wishing they pass away already.

[kaminoneh]

@xAngelicdruidx

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[2tourVet]

@xAngelicdruidx : Older generations? That is a disturbingly ignorant stereotype.

[2tourVet]

@kaminoneh: If you look at it from the Christian perspective, that life is more spiritually important than physically, then you are absolutely right. There should be no consideration of preserving our personal genetic code over the needs of other beings. But, as I am sure most people here believe, we are bound by an evolutionary mechanism that drives us to preserve our own genetic line.

[2tourVet]

@kaminoneh CONT: That drive creates fierce competition in the overall pool and allows for the strongest (most adept) genes to survive and bring our evolution to the next level. 

[2tourVet]

As horrible as it may sound, most mutation kills off the line. But every once in a while a single mutation, often unnoticed, starts a chain of events that usher in a new era of life. By making a choice not to procreate, you may be depriving the human race of the next chain of mutations that are required to survive in the changing environment.

[kendonator1]

Around 9 minutes in, the dialogue with the genetic counselor is DIRECTLY out of the movie Gattaca, word for word.

[ralfjacobs]

@wspol624 there will always be people that disagree,

i have never seen a video that is older than a week without at least 1 dislikes.

PS. if any1 finds a video without dislikes. pls send me a message

[NateNStuff]

8:45 ... He forgot to eliminate the gay gene!

[Jono2415]

Gattaca is one of my favourites. Brilliant videos, thanks.

[3LARI]

@wspol624 May all creationists burn in hell :P

[Direkin]

@3LARI RAmen to that! :P

[uut0]

im made by ivf :D

[MrCockSlut]

pimp my baby.

[msdarkstar1012]

just shows how fragile life is

[urantivirus]

yes we should

[pyVlad]

O.O Where's the scene at the end from? It has the text from GATTACA, but it's a different scene. Did they ever remake the movie?

[silentpoet1988]

fixing the genetics of my kids was avalible i would totally get it no issue no one deserves to die because they have 3 letters missing thats like dieing because you got a computer game and it had one bug in it

[OthelloCarmellow]

I would genetically engineer the hell out of my kid, for sure.

I can't understand this "humanity" sentiment.

Humanity sucks. Bring on the superbabies.

[photon101203]

lol

[aaronpitagn]

i like studying dna

[dangerousbedstories]

This was a great video except for the last part. Who would want to control their child's phenotype to that extent? If both parents are carriers of a genetic disease, then it seems reasonable to prevent the disease from being expressed in the child. However, are we informed enough and prepared to influence the genetic make up of the masses? What effects would that have on natural selection and evolution?

[Eagle0600]

@dangerousbedstories: If we can pinpoint the error down to a single pair of amino acids, and if we can alter this precisely, to remove debilitating diseases, who wouldn't? Of course, the major IF here is "alter this precisely", but that requires knowledge, and so research must be undertaken. Remember, these are mis-copying of DNA that is being fixed, not our own creative alterations.

[dangerousbedstories]

Yes, if we could identify the sequence of amino acids responsible for various debilitating diseases then I can't say that I would not take advantage of that. I was more so referring to cosmetic phenotypic aspects, such as height or eye color. However, I would be very concerned with insertions or deletions of an amino acid while trying to "fix" it, but instead just shifting the entire reading frame. Scary thought. Not every genetic disease is a mis-copying of DNA. How much do we control nature?

[Eagle0600]

@dangerousbedstories: My appoligies. I believed you to be referring to an earlier part of the video. That last part raises interesting questions, but I cannot say that I can know that genetic alteration to that extent WOULD be wrong. Good questions, none-the-less.

[catmaster141]

What i would do in that case would just fix the traits that increase the chance for Alzheimers, cancer and all the other diseases. I would also leave everything else alone...

[teddybeardustin]

I have to think it is better to leave these things alone. Though I can't really imagine properly how differently I might feel if I were in a situation where I was told I could prevent certain percentages of genetic predispositions towards unpleasant circumstances of living.

Ethically it seems a much easier decision to make than when actually faced with the reality of it.

[8DX]

That last bit is ugly.. I'd leave it to random chance and natural selection, these've worked best in the past. Also, what would the world be like without alcoholism? Also, conceiving the children is the FUN part!

[Vamavid]

Answer to last question: NO.

[TrutherD1]

Hey, there's a secret aerosol spraying program going on worldwide. Search "chemtrails", "Dont talk about the weather". Check my chan - I watched it happen. Wake up, wake others, we need ya.

[PluripotentBrain]

@truther

You are brainwashed.

[TrutherD1]

@PluripotentBrain, Check out Nassim Haramein - blow yo mind.

[tommytalks77]

Lol, Haramein is a new-age pseudo-scientist...

You might just as well make your astrological-map whilst carrying a big fucking magic crystal and taking shit-loads of homeopathic medicine then sit down by your chimney and and wait for Santa...

[TrutherD1]

@tommytalks77, What's the harm in watching. Shut off the TV.

[tommytalks77]

there's no harm, it's just a waste of time... like astrology...like magic crystals... or waiting for santa...

[TrutherD1]

@tommytalks77, Each to his own.

[kamguia10]

Its an ethical decision beacause of what it means to be human. I believe that if we were to make the proper advancements than u should eliminate things like near sightedness and alsheimers and many other terrible diseases, but choosing your baby's eye and hair color, thats almost a bit racist. It suggests that there is a certain "beautiful" way humans should be born. I worry that in the future, people will let there personal prefrences get too in the way of natural humanity.

[beachcomber2008]

It doesn't matter that much right now

Only a few people will be changed right now

The exponential rise cannot be steeper than some other constraints which are outstanding

[nishbrown]

'i'll give you a minute to think about it."

A minute!! Wow, it's like flippin' a coin!

[synsei1]

Child in wheelchair : "You knew I was going to have that muscular distrophy and you let it happen to me whereas you could have three base pairs fixed, or select another egg, and you knew it. Now I'm gonna get a life that sucks more and more till I die in my twenties. I don't understand"

Parent : "Because you didn't read that novel by Huxley my child"

[Aspartame69]

we all know how that movie ends.

[zenlama]

Genes do not "Cause", but are only "Correlated" to specific results. Because a gene is present to call forth a certain protein, does not mean it will do so. There are other factors that initiate the genes into action. By stating that genes cause, rather than are Correlated to specific outcomes, we for an incorect concept of the functions of DNA.

[Ormaaj]

How in the world is this an ethical question?

gene to increase IQ? Yes plz.

[buginwater]

read the book brave new world. we would thus create social classes that are impossible to break.

[Ormaaj]

Gotta love Huxley. I still have to finish that book.

[made2bsinging]

This was great, very descriptive. However, the last scene is almost word for word from the movie GATTACA. You just changed the "physical description" of the child. I was waiting for some credit to acknlowledge where the scene was adapted from. Overall, the video was great and very informative. Great descriptions of complicated concepts. Your animations enhanced and supported your descritpions of the disorders. This is tough to do and I must say GREAT VIDEO!!

[amenra13]

Yeah straight up GATTACA rip off at the end.

[mesonparticle]

He keeps saying Chromosone! Arghhhhh!!

[JennyFarlopez]

Chromozone is a portmanteau of chrome and ozone.

[BKF666]

I can agree with getting rid of cancer and other high risk diseases, but at what point as humans do we go to far? To me humans should not engineer there children picking every aspect of their genetic makeup. Getting rid of major diseases I can understand but the rest is a bit more questionable and I think should be left to chance.

[Ko252]

it's impossible to get rid of major diseases, simply because you have to stop mutations, chromosome-crossovers, other organisms, etc.

[BKF666]

Mainly to get rid of the predisposition for the diseases. This can also give a higher resistance to environmental impact. This would greatly reduce high risk diseases. True nothing is 100% but every bit helps. On the flip side still where is the line and how do you know you have crossed it?

[Ko252]

it's good thought, but still not possible, because to do this, you have to have 100% knowledge about the genom, epigenetic factors, environmental factors etc. You have stop mutation, chromosome-crossover-error etc. which will stop the evolution for human kind. The problem with diseases, is that they will evolve until they have catch up with us. so this disease-free periode, will only last a short time.

[Onodera1980]

Go for it. Make a super baby... or at least the most super baby the two of you can create. Hell, maybe skip his genes altogether. I mean... his hair was curly!

[controlledentropy]

good video.

the last part is exactly the same as a scene in the movie "Gattaca"--where the theme of the movie is about the fallacy of in-vitro gene selection.

[kobidobidog]

upper cervical specific care doctors have helped this problem. I just taked to a person who was saved from this problem. Go to upcspine and, find a practistioner. thespecific is a good site too.the problem is a log jam of information that can't get from the brain to the body and, can be likened unto carpul tunnel syndrom of the neck. This problem can begin from a tramatic birth. Dont go to anyone who practises cavitation these are full spine chiropractoirs and or mixers or diversifids .

[Iced1992]

Why couldn't or wouldn't it be implemented? I'd want a designed baby. You are all talking like it will harm the child itself.

[pilgrimpater]

Ah yes. Cystic Fibrosis etc. Clear evidence of god's pefect design.

[MrCockSlut]

@pilgrimpater its because were "sinners". jokes bible bashers are intellectually retarded.

[SilverWolfEspeon]

@pilgrimpater Actually it is clear evidence of the presence of sin in our very genetic material. Scary huh?

[pilgrimpater]

@SilverWolfEspeon Scary indeed if there was the slightest bit of evidence to support such a statement.

[Fordi]

dna(GATACA) -> mRNA(CUAUGU) -> Cystine, Leucine.

[Thejugglingbum]

Yes! Make super kids. How could you not want to? Oh no the world is filled with healthy responsible geniuses who live long lives! Technology is how we humans survive and dominate. The only "unnatural" thing is denying science and not acting like humans and using our knowledge and tools to make life better.

[1RadicalOne]

That last minute or so is still about 20 years in the future.

[Othelie]

what's the website they talk about?

[shenanigan87]

Heh, I see you've used a dialogue from Gattacca ^^

[fantasticalNINJA]

milk dat shit

[Zovex11]

If shit like this keeps up, in about 200 years humans will have the power of lesser gods.

[Raveheart90]

I'm neither for nor against. All I want to say is that, if we're going to play God in any conceivable function, then we'd better know just what the hell we're doing and understand the consequences of our actions.

[0no1one]

Well, we have been doing so in many just as extreme forms for many many millennia in the form of artificial selection and altering the world geographicaly (damming rivers, opening canals, drying swamps to build settlements) Tho this might be more of an "over night" sensation of change, its in essence not much different from what we have been doing to the rest of the planet for ages. Why is it playing god all of a sudden when we apply it more directly to ourself? Is all medicine playing god?

[Raveheart90]

Perhaps. But all I really said was that we'd better be exceptionally responsible about this venture, as with any of these other human endeavors. Like someone else commented before, what if we get more men than women, or more woman than men in the future as a result of this choice?

[0no1one]

Im not in disagreement, but in a slightly elevated perspective its clear that we are already "deep in it" when it comes to altering nature, bit late to start worrying, need I mention you dont have fur anymore ^^ Adaptation is our one and only strenght the way I see it. This is merely advanced adaptation!

on the side:

I can almost guarantee you that its not an exact 50/50 gender ratio today. But it will in all instances take 1male and 1female to mate, so I dont see how it could matter.

[Raveheart90]

Interesting. Should we actively become the architects of our very own children, even for the best, or leave some things to chance? A very weighty consideration to make, I must say. We're not just talking about removing disease and breeding healthy, happy people. We're talking about engineering people to a level that is very close to their intrinsic personality. Should that be left to chance, to the person themselves, or to a mix of both, as it more or less is now?

[MarowakDidIt]

If everyone chooses what they want for their kids, we could expect to see a bunch of kids that look the same, and thus a lack of genetic diversity.

Also, in many cultures boys are favored over girls. If everyone chooses their kids to be boys, then the human race will die out.

However, if both parents have genetic diseases that they could pass on to their kids, then they should probably receive advice from a genetic counselor to eliminate the risk.

[Raveheart90]

Laws and ethical codes will have to follow such a societally-altering development most closely. We don't want manufactured societies, now do we?

Actually, this reminds me of Hitler's vision of eugenics and the elite Aryan race, and then the fictional Eugenics Wars from the background history of Star Trek. Hell, in the worst case scenario, this technology may potentially surpass such cases in scope and overall effect on life. On the flipside, this could elevate mankind to a whole new level.

[willowtreephoto]

or would just those cultures die out?

do we all prefer the same things for our children?

[batflies]

amazing what a little error can do, great video, thanks.

[CelticAlphabet]

That scene at the end was stolen from the movie Gatacca

[oggleman]

this station rules

[RateBuddha]

you said the Government has a web site, for DNA and Gene research. What is that link ?

[DeemotheAtheist]

should we select for our children.... it is a tough decision, and people may not agree with me but i say yes, if i had heamophilia i would try make sure my child was male so i wouldnt pass on a bad gene if my child was female i would put her children at risk of heamophilia whereas i could have nipped it in the bud by selecting the best genes

[jjmblue7]

I agree with the prevention of health complications, but other than that I think it's wrong to decide how a child will come out.

[DecentralizedByGuilt]

I seriously doubt the child would agree with you.

hey would you like to be a retard, or a normal person? lol

[Fordi]

We know why murder is wrong, why stealing is wrong. We can come up with objective reasons for those. Can you derive an objective reason for why child selection is wrong?

[jjmblue7]

Well for one, if too many people choose the same traits in their children it can lower the degree of differentiation in the gene pool, leving it less fit.

For two, it's like saying you're child wouldn't be good enough another way, like you would love them less for being different than they were made. If I had a retarded child i would love him/her just as much as I would as a "normal" child.

[jjmblue7]

And while I admit point 2 was certainly subjective, point 1 was objective.

[Fordi]

Objective, but conditional.

I doubt too many people will insist on having asthetic traits selected in the same way over a large population. The distribution will be atypical, for certain, but I think it unlikely that the human race has uniform tastes.

As for genetic disease limitation - yes. We will eliminate genes that are known to harm us - and likely, we will stumble across some genes deemed harmful that also help us in ways we won't perceive until after the first or second generations.

[catmaster141]

Who said anything about eliminating? The gene would be fixed, not destroyed.

[Fordi]

A gene is a particular set of information encoded in DNA. By altering it in any way, we've effectively destroyed it in the individual, replacing it with a new one - a new gene that instances of the old gene in other individuals will have to compete with in the larger population.

Given continued genetic repair, targeted towards disease-causing sequences, a subset of genes *will* be eliminated in the population, having been replaced with other, slightly different, non-harmful genes.

[Fordi]

But that only means that what would be "wrong", in this case, is doing only cursory testing before releasing a genetic mod out into the wild.

So? Genetic mods must be fully tested prior to use in the wider population, and their interactions with other genes fully understood.

This is the primary reason we don't do this stuff *already*. We know, on a gross level, what genes do what, and we know how to select for them in vitro. What stops us /are/ the intolerable unknowns.

[Fordi]

Now, as far as "For two, it's like saying you're child wouldn't be good enough another way" goes, I think that's a bit dishonest. By the same logic, abstaining from alcohol during pregnancy implies that the mother wouldn't love a baby stricken with fetal alcohol syndrome.

It's about giving the child the best chance at a healthy life, nothing more.

[jjmblue7]

I think that would imply that the mother would want her baby to be healty. The risk of fetal alcohol syndrome lies with the mother possibly drinking, not with DNA, so it has nothing to do with modifying a child's DNA...on a side note, thanks for being a polite debater with me.

[Fordi]

And the risk of Cystic Fibrosis, in a society with a certain amount of control over their own genetic legacy, lay with the parents making good decisions about their child's health.

My point is that, essentially, if an option is open with potential benefit, it is - to my mind - amoral to prohibit it. Regulate, restrict, yes, especially when intolerable dangers exist. But to say it's inherently "wrong" (the initial premise of the conversation) - I don't think that's valid or helpful.

[buginwater]

we should not be allowed to select our children's genes that's harmful to society and the human species. it harms society because people born without gene munipulation might get passed over for a job or insurance. it hurts our species because we might eventually whine out genes that may be helpful in the future. for instance: blue eyes are more desired so people make kids with blue eyes. maybe a diesase comes along and it attacks people with blue eyes a large amount of the population would die

[catmaster141]

I say that you should change everything that is dangerous to the child and not changing traits that are harmless like eye color, hair color, skin color and intelligence.

[Fordi]

You say that, but can you give good reasons for such a restriction?

[Aldawok12]

You can't do that, some genes carry these traits.

[ShikaNinja]

So how do any beneficial mutations come forth? they all see pretty bad to me, seeing how sensitive DNA is.

[DeemotheAtheist]

most mutations are neutral and these accululate in the population a small change to these might then make a change in say heamoglobin to make it slightly more effective, the beneficial mutations in humans might not be passed down since we only have a few children. but in animals like rabbits where colour is nessersary for survival, a mutation in the gene that codes for fur colour could make them more conspicuos or less conspicious, this impacts on their survival.

[ShikaNinja]

Thank you, i enjoy to learn something form time to time

[qanazir]

I think it would be ethicly sound, to take early bloodsamples, for preventing fetuses with these horrible diseases from being born.

[tsjoencinema]

Death is the ultimate genetic disorder. Your lifespan is endodded in your genes.

[qanazir]

That's hardly a disorder, without it we would be cancer ridden very early in our lifes...

[ZamatoElite]

Eugenics FTW.

[DustyMay1944]

Soon we will be able to create a real god.

[rkil007]

Not really - a god is supernatural. Anything created within the framework of science cannot be supernatural.

[DustyMay1944]

We've already made several of the supernatural ones but it was too hard to convince everyone they existed. :-) I'm sorry, I forgot about our Lord Obama.

[rkil007]

I'm not exactly sure what that means. Belief in something does not constitute creation except in the mind of the believer. I guess you're suggesting that Obama is thought of as a god? Hmm, interesting point, though if we're talking about godly presidents we might as well start with George Washington.

[DustyMay1944]

You need to work on your sense of humor rkil007. Lighten up!

George Washington??? How old do you think I am? The first president I remember a campaign for was Eisenhower.

[Fordi]

He's not a God. If you recall one of his post-debate speeches, he's a Kryptonian. Totally not supernatural.

[Fjarhultian]

I hope they included nutrition when calculating that height.

[TingTang1234567]

The Eugenics scene on the end of this is just grim.

[Fordi]

Eugenics would imply artificial selection by a central authority based on subjective standards via murder and/or sterilization.

This is artificial selection based primarily on removal of disease, at the discretion of the parents via selection of sperm and egg.

It's not grim. It's hopeful. Have kids without disease.

The aesthetic selection part is kind of irritating - but if you can select for disease you can select for skin tone.

[TingTang1234567]

It is eugenics ;)

Artificial selection on any basis is eugenics :P

We would effectively be 'breeding out' genes we saw as unfavorable. An simple example is the sickle cell trait. The possession and expression of that gene can provide immunity to malaria (At a cost ofc.) We remove it it actually weakens the gene pool. The strongest gene pool is a varied one.

I find eugenics and the ethical implications of this facinating, but it can never be implimented on humans.

[Fordi]

Ok, fine. Eugenics is any self-direction of selection. My insinuation is that, since it didn't involve murder and sterilization, it's not the same kind as was rightfully demonized in the 1920's.

"We would effectively be 'breeding out' genes we saw as unfavorable."

Not precisely. Without a central authority to control it, genetics would become partially democratized; we'd remove from the gene pool only genes that *all of us* see as unfavorable. If one person retains it, so does the pool.

[TingTang1234567]

Ah, so a democracy to control gene distribution?

Well all goverments need enforcement, so perhaps some kind of Gene Police? To make sure those with genes we have democratically voted to be unneeded don't have kids and pollute the pool.

If we start removing genes from the pool by not letting them be passed on by carriers, then you weaken the gene pool. Eventually every child of that generation would be a tall genius with blue eyes, good muscle tone, no hair loss and could be killed by a new flu.

[biomanwin]

Exactly, take a look at domesticated animals, many of the breeds humans have devoloped without any genetic knowledge would be unable to survive in the wild. Dairy cows for example are almost completely unable to run because of their large udders.

[Fordi]

Eh. It's not remarkable that a tiny change can cause huge problems - what's remarkable is that most mutations *don't* cause problems. It's a testament to the error-correcting mechanisms and allowance for redundancy in the human (mammalian, really) genome.

[Paxmax]

protein folding! a occupation that takes a bit more than a rubik's cube!

[canerdc]

Yeah!

[Shalek]

Eerie ending.

[JustAManInAMask]

Eugenics :3

[CarpeOmne]

GATTACA RIPOFF LAWL

[y0kent0]

good movie, good video, thanks

[325982668]

lol GATACA

[imaware82]

i think this video is awesome.. we should chose the best for our children .. though blue eyes are more sensitive than brown eyes.. so the best would be brown and actually more melanin in the skin is better..

[Fordi]

"Better" is a relative term, depending on environment.

[imaware82]

noooo!!! the sun shines anywhere... and you dont expect that your son or daughter will stay in one place.. he will be so healthy that he or she will try to see the whole world and what if he or she likes the sun?.. most people do!!! BETTER safe than sorry..right?... why would you want a pale white kid?.. a tan looks BETTER!!!! and its safer against alot of skin diseases..

[Fordi]

>_>

You're taking this way too seriously.

[imaware82]

well its not a fairytale!!!

[Fordi]

Ok, fine. I'll take it seriously.

"tan looks BETTER"

That is a subjective choice.

"its safer against alot of skin diseases"

It's safer against 1 skin disease: melanoma. And it only matters if you have other genetic indicators towards cancer.

"why would you want a pale white kid?"

If we're going into designer kids, that would be a choice based on the aesthetics of the parents.

Last, and you didn't mention it, ideally, sunburns could be prevented genetically, too.

[imaware82]

tan is safer" ok!!!!! its the truth nazi!!!! lol sorry.. had to say that.. but sunburns are prevented genetically?.. are you serious?.. are you in a trailer park in alabama?.. no offense alabama!!... but .. there are many more skin diseases than melanoma... and stop picking on my fast grammar... but more melanin is ...BETTER

[Fordi]

Did I say "are"?

No, I said, "ideally", and "could be". For example, given a faster melanin response and lower base production rate, a person 'could' be both pale and able to deal with high sunlight without being as likely to burn as an unmodified human.

"and stop picking on my fast grammar"

Where did I pick on your grammar? I, at this point, am more concerned about your ability to *read*.

[EpicHiroDJ]

lol, gattaca tribute much ? : P~

<3

[roidroid]

the end is almost word-for-word from Gattaca