|
On January 07 2012 08:01 NOobToss wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2012 03:42 FallDownMarigold wrote:On January 07 2012 03:40 Krikkitone wrote:
You have a few cells in you that have your mother's genes (picked up while you were in the womb, and were able to survive) Your mother has a few cells in her that have your genes, picked up while she was pregnant.
What the fuck? Am I the only one that is missing something here, or is this dude completely wrong? What do you mean we have foreign cells from our moms with distinct genomes, inside our bodies? Where are they? Are they functional contributors to anything? In which regions do they grow, or survive? How do they survive? Do they have a stem cell population that replenishes them? Why don't they die off? Are they located in a niche in which multipotent progenitors can be induced to exist at certain times? actually there is a very very small niche-like field (pardon the pun xD) studying fetal-maternal chimerism. it was basically discovered that there were some cells present in a mouse fetus that were of maternal origin and followup studies basically using a mouse mom with a GFP-knock in mutation bore some pups that had some non-germline GFP+ cells (or is it the other way round? my memory fails me). but again, its a really really small field and no one really knows what are its implications. EDIT: there is apparently a wikipedia article on it : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microchimerism
THIS IS SO COOL! I did not know about this at all. Btw, the GFP lineage test could go both ways depending on how the experiment is designed, so you are right regardless of your memory in my book :p
|
On January 07 2012 10:02 Joedaddy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2012 04:00 Humanfails wrote:On January 06 2012 17:37 gosuMalicE wrote:On January 06 2012 17:32 Chaosvuistje wrote:
Amazing, imagine all the possibilities! If I had the power to unethically forge creatures together I would definitely get a bird with 4 heads just so they never stop chirping.
It's good advancement, but we'll have to ask the question of how ethical this is every step of the way. How could this be unethical they are animals, unless they stared doing it to humans, which I highly doubt will happen. you're an animal too. To claim you are not is a fallacy religion has pushed since the beginning of time. Animals feel pain. animals have brains. you have a brain (presumably). you feel pain. ethics derives from concepts of right and wrong. I don't believe that I am an animal. I believe I have a soul and that I was created in God's image and this is what separates human beings from animals. Whether you agree or disagree doesn't change who is right and who is wrong. Neither side will ever convince the other. I found your post incredibly disrespectful. I'm not asking you to believe what I believe, but I think its important to be respectful of everyone's beliefs in an effort to foster open discussion.
Biologically, humans are mammals. But humans are incapable of so many mental and psychological faculties completely nonexistent in other creatures that the only offense I find is comparing a species so high as humans to filthy brutes (sure, we can act misanthropic and/or smart alecs and note how many unimaginably degenerate humans there are that they may as well be as stupid as other animals, but let's not do that).
To deny that humans are mammals is to deny simple biological classification of general groups that have certain physical traits in common :S. There's no offense in it at all. You see, the argument you should have made is how humans are sapient, capable of judgment, capable of using reason to determine behavior rather than being dominated by instinct like other creatures, abstract thought, intellect, and tons more things that specifically differentiate us from every other form of life on this planet.
But when you bring up the "made in god's image" stuff written by ancient Hebrew religious fanatics some 25 centuries ago, you're shooting yourself in the foot. 
|
On January 07 2012 09:58 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2012 07:55 sviatoslavrichter wrote:
So we could genetically engineer super soldiers then? You've never played Return to Castle Wolfenstein? The Germans already did  + Show Spoiler +
I'll be really, really sad if someone's taking me seriously.
That said, why are people talking about genetic engineering? While this is kinda screwed up, it isn't anywhere near as fucked as some prospects hoped to be achieved by genetic engineering like creating new types of hybridized animals and stuff. All that was done here was [uselessly] putting 6 sets of parent DNA into one monkey embryo. :| Like another guy said, all this seems like is "lol let's fuck around with genes trolololo". It seems useless at best; just screwing around with things for the sake of doing so.
Yeah, they only did it for kicks...
Seriously, why do people think anything they don't understand must be useless?
|
On January 07 2012 10:12 nam nam wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2012 09:58 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On January 07 2012 07:55 sviatoslavrichter wrote:
So we could genetically engineer super soldiers then? You've never played Return to Castle Wolfenstein? The Germans already did + Show Spoiler +
I'll be really, really sad if someone's taking me seriously.
That said, why are people talking about genetic engineering? While this is kinda screwed up, it isn't anywhere near as fucked as some prospects hoped to be achieved by genetic engineering like creating new types of hybridized animals and stuff. All that was done here was [uselessly] putting 6 sets of parent DNA into one monkey embryo. :| Like another guy said, all this seems like is "lol let's fuck around with genes trolololo". It seems useless at best; just screwing around with things for the sake of doing so. Yeah, they only did it for kicks... Seriously, why do people think anything they don't understand must be useless?
Self satisfaction and pride. Something don't make sense to you? To fuck with it, can't possibly be good or useful!
But ya in all seriousness, this is an example of genetic engineering in a broad sense, and tho it might seem like its just "trololol", it is the future of medicine.
|
Really cool. Shows that we are not as far away from human gene splicing as we all think.
Made-to-order children inc!
|
On January 06 2012 17:37 gosuMalicE wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 17:32 Chaosvuistje wrote:
Amazing, imagine all the possibilities! If I had the power to unethically forge creatures together I would definitely get a bird with 4 heads just so they never stop chirping.
It's good advancement, but we'll have to ask the question of how ethical this is every step of the way. How could this be unethical they are animals, unless they stared doing it to humans, which I highly doubt will happen.
Then i guess if some Alien comes and does that to you, you would not blame him right? Assuming he thinks you are from an inferior race.
|
On January 06 2012 18:31 Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:
The ethical problems with this are astronomic, but from a philosophical stand, interesting. I say they push this to its very limit and see how deep down the rabbit hole goes.
I wish there would be no such thing as Ethics, nowadays its mostly a tool to delay the inevitable (scientific progress), which is good for humanity.
|
I know TL isn't a fan of one image responses to a thread. However I'm willing to break the rules.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/OM7Lq.png)
|
On January 07 2012 10:47 bgx wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 18:31 Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:
The ethical problems with this are astronomic, but from a philosophical stand, interesting. I say they push this to its very limit and see how deep down the rabbit hole goes. I wish there would be no such thing as Ethics, nowadays its mostly a tool to delay the inevitable (scientific progress), which is good for humanity.
Well if you don't have some ethics, then you get things like what happened during World War II, and similar events in the past. We did actually further science with those actions, we know things we didn't know before, but was it worth it? Not in my opinion, we don't want to further science despite the cost, cause it would be bad for humanity, not good for it.
How about just skipping all the phases of testing for a new drug and just testing them on humans that are gonna die from terminal diseases. We can say they are all terminally ill, and they are mandatory supposed to take these drugs that are untested, so that we can discover cures at a much much faster rate. I don't think that would fly with most people.
But if you mean people saying don't do this stuff because it's like playing god, I can get behind you, that's not a justifiable reason.
Also not do dive into a deep discussion on ethics, cause it is way off topic, but what If I were to take your genetics, and the genetics of say.. your spouse and start producing crazy offspring mutations with it. Sure it's not exactly what happened in this case, but I mean, that would probably piss you off right? I'm all for scientific research when your furthering medicine, I've got a sense of self preservation, but testing on animals for the hell of it upsets me, and i'm not even sure where to draw the line. 
Overall these chimeras are interesting, but I don't see the huge deal about them.
Too the post below mine, pigs have the intelligence of about 2 year old children, should we test on your 2 year old children? I'm not saying give animals tons and tons of rights, but to blatantly treat every living thing like it's shit unless it's human is just an old practice that is archaic and inhumane.
|
On January 06 2012 18:59 WarChimp wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 17:37 gosuMalicE wrote:On January 06 2012 17:32 Chaosvuistje wrote:
Amazing, imagine all the possibilities! If I had the power to unethically forge creatures together I would definitely get a bird with 4 heads just so they never stop chirping.
It's good advancement, but we'll have to ask the question of how ethical this is every step of the way. How could this be unethical they are animals, unless they stared doing it to humans, which I highly doubt will happen. Just because they are animals doesn't mean they don't deserve rights.
Animals cannot conceive of the concept of rights and thus cannot have them.
|
![[image loading]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_jx-KCnvjTuI/R7Lrclaeh-I/AAAAAAAADJw/GU1wiw5Xs8c/s400/goatDM0802_468x391.jpg) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheep%E2%80%93goat_chimera
Geep have existed since 1984. I learned about them from Radiolab
|
On January 07 2012 11:04 gosuMalicE wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 18:59 WarChimp wrote:On January 06 2012 17:37 gosuMalicE wrote:On January 06 2012 17:32 Chaosvuistje wrote:
Amazing, imagine all the possibilities! If I had the power to unethically forge creatures together I would definitely get a bird with 4 heads just so they never stop chirping.
It's good advancement, but we'll have to ask the question of how ethical this is every step of the way. How could this be unethical they are animals, unless they stared doing it to humans, which I highly doubt will happen. Just because they are animals doesn't mean they don't deserve rights. Animals cannot conceive of the concept of rights and thus cannot have them.
Really?
I'll be the first to say the amounts of red tape you have to cut through to do anything at all to a mouse, let alone a monkey, are bordering on ridiculous, but that's an absurd statement. Does someone's 18 month old daughter deserve rights? 'Cause she sure doesn't know what they are.
|
Hurting animals for the simple joy of it is one thing, using them in experiments/tests to better humanity is another.
|
On January 07 2012 10:47 bgx wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 18:31 Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:
The ethical problems with this are astronomic, but from a philosophical stand, interesting. I say they push this to its very limit and see how deep down the rabbit hole goes. I wish there would be no such thing as Ethics, nowadays its mostly a tool to delay the inevitable (scientific progress), which is good for humanity.
But scientific advances create ethical controversies and debates. Abortion, eugenics, genetic modification...technology doesn't solve the ethical problems it creates. Abortion, for example, is a debate created by advances in science (or rather, made relevant by those advances). Ethics allows us a mechanism to determine what the proper path of moral behavior is. Scientific progress isn't inherently good for humanity.
|
On January 07 2012 10:02 Joedaddy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2012 04:00 Humanfails wrote:On January 06 2012 17:37 gosuMalicE wrote:On January 06 2012 17:32 Chaosvuistje wrote:
Amazing, imagine all the possibilities! If I had the power to unethically forge creatures together I would definitely get a bird with 4 heads just so they never stop chirping.
It's good advancement, but we'll have to ask the question of how ethical this is every step of the way. How could this be unethical they are animals, unless they stared doing it to humans, which I highly doubt will happen. you're an animal too. To claim you are not is a fallacy religion has pushed since the beginning of time. Animals feel pain. animals have brains. you have a brain (presumably). you feel pain. ethics derives from concepts of right and wrong. I don't believe that I am an animal. I believe I have a soul and that I was created in God's image and this is what separates human beings from animals. Whether you agree or disagree doesn't change who is right and who is wrong. Neither side will ever convince the other. I found your post incredibly disrespectful. I'm not asking you to believe what I believe, but I think its important to be respectful of everyone's beliefs in an effort to foster open discussion. Talk about yourself, talk about your beliefs, but don't tell me what I am and am not.
He can tell you that you are animal and not much you can do about that, especially since he is right. Unless you actually are a plant, bacteria or virus. Being an animal does not change that you are also human. As for his main point which was not about religious views per se, but about morality/ethics, concepts of right and wrong are based on empathy and fairness. Thus animals feeling pain and you being capable of empathy makes needless suffering of animals wrong. If you would like more formal explanation, needless suffering of animals leads to increased suffering not only of those animals, but in long terms also humans, so again it is wrong.
|
On January 07 2012 10:47 bgx wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 18:31 Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:
The ethical problems with this are astronomic, but from a philosophical stand, interesting. I say they push this to its very limit and see how deep down the rabbit hole goes. I wish there would be no such thing as Ethics, nowadays its mostly a tool to delay the inevitable (scientific progress), which is good for humanity.
Ethics is a "study" of morality. Your wish to be rid of ethics is nearly equivalent to abolishing of morality. And by morality I do not mean what thousands of years old books consider moral or immoral, but basic concepts of right and wrong. Quite terrifying prospect.
|
I was expecting 6headed monkeys or something...
Still : nice find science!
|
I think it is not wrong to experiment with humans as long as there is no pain involved.
Experimenting with animals is okay if there is pain involved. but only if there is a better cause like helping humans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
