Here is a Question WAY off topic.

[funboy6942]

I read a while ago, and was sitting here thinking back on it, that there was something in a maker of a diet coke product that was found to alter a persons dna structure. If that is true and say, 15 years ago that person committed a murder or crime, or had sexual relations with someone that resulted in a child being born, started taking a drug, or what have you, that was able to change their dna structure enough to prove though dna testing they were not the person who is the father, or committed the crime, but actually was the person, how would you be able to prove otherwise?

Meaning Back then their DNA sample would be different then now due to the drugs they were on had changed their dna enough to show a good enough change in the new test, that it would now rule them out as being the suspect or father of a child.

I dont know anything about this other then what I read saying that they were going to start banning the chemical used in the soda, and cant find that what I read anywhere to post up, but if just that one is possible then there has to be many other drugs on the market that can do the same thing, NO? And if it can do that would that allow people to be set free who were the actual persons who did commit the crimes, or are the actual fathers go without being punished?

 

[Oceandevi]

I want the option of genetic modification.

 

[mordantmonkey]

it's not. currently only viruses can change cellular DNA in a controlled fashion.
even if it were true/possible, you'd have to prove that the specific changes were caused by said chemical. a pretty impossible task, unless your legal team has unlimited time and resources.

not to mention you would have to change specific markers that the DNA testing used. i don't know of any company that would waste their time designing gene therapies that would alter specific DNA segments that didn't have any use other than to alter someone's "identity". but then stranger things have happened i suppose.

 

[vi edit]

Something like .00001% of the genetic markers from person to person are unique. It would be highly unlikey that something could accidentally alter one of those remote markers.

Not to say it's impossible, but it's just not probable.

You can't change your blood type, eye color, race/ancestry, hair color, gender, ect. It's a process of elimination that is done with DNA tests that narrow down whether or not you were that person.

 

[imported_Baloo]

DNA testing used by forensics is not near precice enough to pick up on a minor change as described in the OP. It's like fingerprint technology, it looks at specific markers, somthing like 16 for fingerprints, and a few more for DNA. The change would have to be in one of those markers, and the odds are very much against that being the case.

 

[Canai]

Originally posted by: Oceandevi
I want the option of genetic modification.

You should play though Bioshock and then rethink that idea

Anybody ever read the book Relic? It had this explorer-type guy in South America get force-fed a plant that had a virus in it. The virus took over his cells, but instead of destroying them, modified the DNA and turned him into a monster.

Damn good book, one of the scariest I have ever read.

 

[NanoStuff]

You're referring to aspartame, and it's probably less 'DNA altering' than the burned grit on your barbecued steak. And no, they won't start banning the chemical, should we start banning beef too?

As for why it won't do anything for DNA tests, see above.

 

[Oceandevi]

Originally posted by: Canai

Originally posted by: Oceandevi
I want the option of genetic modification.

You should play though Bioshock and then rethink that idea

Anybody ever read the book Relic? It had this explorer-type guy in South America get force-fed a plant that had a virus in it. The virus took over his cells, but instead of destroying them, modified the DNA and turned him into a monster.

Damn good book, one of the scariest I have ever read.

A game will not change my mind. I will advance to post human status before anyone can stop me, and you all shall suffer.

 

[gururu2]

every cell in your body has its own dna copy. it is near impossible to alter the DNA of each cell identically, i.e. specifically. now, if said chemical specifically altered brain dna, and preferentially altered a gene that predisposed someone to crime, I would be more inclined to believe it. if the target gene is known, it would be very easy to compare the brain gene to the same gene in another part of the body. if they were different, then there is credibility in the story.

 

[StevenYoo]

a DNA modification resulting in behavior change is EXTREMELY unlikely, as the mutation would have to affect a majority of the body's cells.

most DNA mutations are either silent mutations that have no detrimental effect or are those that cause the cell to initiate its apoptosis cascade.

 

[Taejin]

the DNA mutations would have little to no effect because it would affect ONE cell out of trillions. Even if it managed to change some genes on hundreds of thousands of cells, they would all have to be changed in the same area, at the same time, and the same change.

In essence, no. Nothing would happen. The only thing that could happen that would be bad would be cancer, and even then that requires multiple mutations, not just one.

 

[WildHorse]

I read that tumeric, used in India for curry, causes dna changes.

 

[NanoStuff]

the DNA mutations would have little to no effect

It certainly would have an effect. The more exposure cells have to oxidizing chemicals and other sources of damage, the more damage they progressively accumulate. Nuclear DNA is reasonably resistant to such damage, but mitochondrial DNA not so much. DNA damage is a substantial source of age-related complications and you'd be best off minimizing it by avoiding certain foods and UV light where possible.