Saintandy666

Shame about Robson, but she lacks consistency sometimes in her game at the moment. She'll mature though, so hopefully she can come back in the coming years and do even better.

I'd imagine that in the near future we will be able to screen and as you say 'select out' for diseases like Cystic Fybrosis which are basically down to one gene. However, not all genetic diseases are as simple as one gene and not all would come down purely to genetics either I'd imagine with environmental influences coming into play as well. I'd never be in support of what people call 'designer babies', but where it is a case of preventing death or disability I don't have any objections to some alterations. As for your original question, I have no idea of the proportion of genetic diseases which would be easiest to tackle but this list might be useful. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders All the ones which are just point mutations within one gene are probably the easiest to tackle. Edit: All genetic diseases (and indeed useful genes) effectively come down to mutations at some point though.

It's not really a different kind of baby though in that sense. It's not like they will have blue eyes or something. It is literally the difference between a dead baby/severely disabled baby and a baby that can live a long and healthy life. The only thing that will change is that that child will be able to have the equipment to produce the right amount of energy to survive.

I'm currently at uni doing a degree which involves studying a reasonable amount of genetics.

It really isn't quite like that, so there would be no unintended social or biological consequences. You are talking about using someone else's mitochondria. Mitochondria have their own DNA probably because they used to be free-living bacteria which were absorbed into our ancestors cells, and the deal worked quite well for both of the organisms at the time. The mitochondrial genome is tiny at just ~16500 bases long whereas the human one is ~3,200,000,000 bases long. So it is a tiny 'alteration' that can make a huge difference to people's lives because of the role mitochondria play in the body. Also, mitochondrial DNA is inherited entirely differently to the rest of the genome. All of your mitochondria come from your mother because the egg cell is just so large compared to the sperm cell meaning there are many more mitochondria present. Also, it believed that any mitochondria from the sperm cell that enter the egg cell are labelled with a protein called unbiquitin and basically digested down. My point is that not only is it the smallest alteration that can make a huge difference to people's lives, such is the role mitochondria play, but also the inheritance of the mtDNA is entirely separate to that of the rest of the genome so you affect nothing to do with normal DNA.

Tbh, it could be a joke (or most likely just pocket phone). A sign of immaturity if it is a joke. I was behind the Saints youth team in the queue of Nandos in Southampton (last year I believe), and Luke Shaw was there with the rest of the youth team of the time, and they all did seem a bit arrogant. But tbh, what footballing teenager wouldn't be a bit arrogant at that age? Also, some arrogance is probably quite good for the top sportsman. The key is reigning it in when he hits the big time.

Really want stripes back. Stripes are what Southampton should be, not the red block from this year.

He's 17, and been playing the vast majority of Saints's games this year in the world's most demanding league... at SEVENTEEN. It's no wonder he's picked up an injury.

Bad attempt at goading me. Obviously I condemn what happened 100%.

The civil partnership issue is a good one, it's not fair if it remains so. However, it is a side issue to the current debate which is allowing homosexuals access to the institution of marriage. We can deal with the civil partnership issue over the next year or two (if it is even still relevant) and I'm sure it would go through parliament very quickly given the absolutely not cynical support of it at all by tory backbenchers. I'm sure us ever persecuted heterosexuals can wait just another year or two for civil partnerships. Let's not get distracted here. Equal marriage has been a long time coming, and it would be a shame if it were derailed because of a point that can and will be dealt with afterwards.

If civil partnerships remain post equal marriage, then heterosexuals should be allowed to have one. I have met people before who are heterosexual, but would like a civil partnership just because of what they perceive the institution of marriage to stand for.

There could be a 3rd place play off if Chelsea draw and Arsenal beat Newcastle by 1 goal, but score 2 more than Chelsea score in their draw. That would be entertaining.

This is good. Since Markus Liebherr passed away there has always been speculation about whether his daughter was fully committed or not. Now we know she is and we can move on. Excellent news.

Gove's ideas are largely stupid, and far too concentrated on turning back the clock in our education system when we need to be looking to the future. As for the A-G marking system, it doesn't really matter, as the OP said... and everyone knows only C and above is taken seriously. However, I do agree with Michael Gove on a couple of things despite my overall grievances. 1. Science GCSE's (less so the separate sciences, more the core and additional science GCSE) - Are far too easy, and compartmentalised. Too much multiple choice, and I don't really see how it can encourage you to join the dots in science and discover more unless you are the kind of student who takes that kind of interest regardless. 2. AS Levels - AS levels are significantly easier than A2 levels, yet we combine them and give them equal weighting in terms of points. Too many people get high grades off the back of good AS results, and for me there is a really big difference between a student who gets A's at AS and less than that at A2, but still gets an A overall, and a student who gets A's in both AS and A2. 3. Non-subjects - there really are some non-subjects with bad weighting which encourages schools to waste time on them. Take the stupid IT course I was made to do in year 11 (it was a BTEC and had ridiculous weighting being worth several C's - nothing wrong with BTEC's in general of course, just this one.) and this was in addition to an IT GCSE I had already done. The only reason we had to do this was because it was easy, and so everyone passed, thus improving the points score for my school. And that is where I agree with Gove. Everything else, absolutely not.

I don't know about that... the pro-EU side have barely started arguing yet. There's just been a lot of shouting and posturing from one side, so we should wait and see what happens. Also, at the locals, iirc UKIP got c. 20% in the wards they stood in, which a. is in selective wards and b. is not that high and c. is inflated by the local election effect. I doubt they will get many seats at the general election... perhaps Farage as he has the personality factor, but beyond that I'm not sure. I also suspect that the established parties are holding back bringing attention to some of the more nasty realities of UKIP like their tax policy and so on...

And those kids grow into their parents, and then they have kids who are faultless and grow into their parents. It's a cycle, and it needs to be broken with some sort of thorough intervention of a type I don't know what. And @Wade Garrett, your solution is unviable. Dropping families out of welfare will only make the situation worse as their problems are often systematic and ingrained over generations and as I just said will most likely need concentrated action to break.

We're safe, bar a bizarre meltdown at Stoke. That's all that matters.

What makes you think they will suddenly go from clear champions to struggling for a top four finish?! Where is the evidence for that?

Okay, I did not know that and I guess the form addition adds a certain amount of validity to the percentages. Still, I think a weighting addition would also be useful.

Sometimes yes, but a lot of times no. In reality, I think most players and teams will really want to win regardless, because that is what they are driven by as professionals. Also, I think too much time is given to the fact that other teams will be pumped to win as if Southampton wouldn't be. I think we are safe, because I really don't think all of the teams below us can overtake us, but 1 more win wouldn't go amiss to put it to rest.

The problem with these percentages(if I understand them correctly) is that they weight each outcome as equal when in reality some outcomes are more probable than others. For example, we are much more likely to lose to Tottenham than not to lose to them.

I think you need integration of the sexes in schools as well, as again I think you miss out without being integrated. And I know grammar schools aren't for the posh, I know tonnes of grammar school people. But it does create unfairness, and I can see that by the number of comprehensive people at my uni compared to grammar school and private. Sure, it gives you a leg up, but the system ****s on everyone else who doesn't get that opportunity or who is a late developer. And I don't blame you personally for sending your children to a grammar school( or people who send their children to private schools). Every parent wants to do the best for their children, but that doesn't make it fair in terms of those who aren't so lucky to be intelligent enough at 11.

Grammar schools are alright for the lucky few who manage to do well at 11 and get in, but it ****s on everyone else. Plus, I think by going to comprehensive school you are able to meet all kinds of people, which is important. I would not want a return to grammar schools.

I'm not sure the same is true for local government, as people tend to end up blaming national government for most things. Also, UKIP don't actually control any councils (as of yet), so they can still effectively snipe from the sidelines and get more publicity. Of course, you could be right though if some of the candidates elected were the 'unvetted', or if they start shouting about their desire to abolish the progressive tax system and decimate public services.

You should always vote, even if that means turning up and spoiling your ballot.