Adult Stem Cells vs Embryonic Stem Cells.

[Diogenes]

The process is called cloning and has been done on animals. It has not been done on humans, because it is not allowed. Technically this has already been possible for a long time though, even long before Dolly was created.

I'm thinking that we aren't connecting on this point. I am saying that a skin cell is NOT a Zygote. You are saying that it can be turned in to one. I am saying that's not the same thing.

If you want to talk about performing embryonic stem cell research on skin cells which have been turned into zygotes, then I can't say I have an issue with it.

What you are saying is that because a skin cell can be turned into a zygote, a zygote is no more significant than a skin cell.

This is like saying a pile of meat is no different from a person. They are not the same thing. One is special, the other is not.


But like I said. Perform all your embryonic stem cell research on converted skin cells and many of the objections would cease.

i believe the point is so would the difference. at that point it would be physically identical to an embroynic stem cell complete w/a full set of dna. it _would be_ an embroynic stem cell complete w/a full set of dna. and with proper incubation and what not, you could grow humans out of it just like you could with the original.

because the cell can do that. that's why it's so valuable because from it you can create any other type of cell. if this were not the case it couldn't do that.

Good point. That wouldn't silence objections because they have multiple components. It is not Just that a human life is being destroyed, it is also that people are creating\manipulating human life. Too many people have an aversion to "Frankenstein" like research. It again calls up a worrisome slippery slope.

If you can kill a human life, or create one from a skin cell, then could you not also add wings or horns? could you not manipulate the DNA to make a race of Super Men? Could you make Centaurs, Satyrs, Harpies, Mermaids, etc. ?

Don't tell me that such things wouldn't happen. Humans, being what they are would of course do such things. I recall reading of a Russian scientist experimenting with cross breeding between apes and humans.

Yeah, there's more than one reason why many people look at research along these lines as potentially repugnant.

[Diogenes]

Pretty soon we'll be living GATTACA for real.

And there we are at the aforementioned demonizing of science again, if it does not coincide with a certain ideology.
Gattaca was a stupid movie with a stupid premise made by stupid people with an ideologically influenced agenda.

Kinda like George Orwell's "1984", or even his "Animal Farm."


Sometimes things don't have to be described perfectly accurately to get the gist of the concern across. I am personally somewhat frightened by the all too real possibilities of the abuses in GATTACA, and likewise by the threatening potential of the movie "Terminator."

Just because these movies are inaccurate and far fetched does not prevent them from giving voice to real concerns.

[happyjack27]

i believe the point is so would the difference. at that point it would be physically identical to an embroynic stem cell complete w/a full set of dna. it _would be_ an embroynic stem cell complete w/a full set of dna. and with proper incubation and what not, you could grow humans out of it just like you could with the original.

because the cell can do that. that's why it's so valuable because from it you can create any other type of cell. if this were not the case it couldn't do that.

Good point. That wouldn't silence objections because they have multiple components. It is not Just that a human life is being destroyed, it is also that people are creating\manipulating human life. Too many people have an aversion to "Frankenstein" like research. It again calls up a worrisome slippery slope.

If you can kill a human life, or create one from a skin cell, then could you not also add wings or horns? could you not manipulate the DNA to make a race of Super Men? Could you make Centaurs, Satyrs, Harpies, Mermaids, etc. ?

Don't tell me that such things wouldn't happen. Humans, being what they are would of course do such things. I recall reading of a Russian scientist experimenting with cross breeding between apes and humans.

Yeah, there's more than one reason why many people look at research along these lines as potentially repugnant.

oh yeah, and if understand correctly we can already clone a human. i mean, the technology is there. it would be really frickin' expensive but we can do it. i read an article once about some rich schmoe who cloned his dead dog back to life. i mean, not the same physical matter, actually, a new one, ofcourse, but genetically identical. and it was of course uber-expensive.

we already have the technology. the question is what we do with it. and that's always the trouble with technology, isn't it?

human cloning would right away through the security of our democracy into question, via the whole "one person one vote". what constitutes one person? and if a clone is not considered "a person", is that not slavery?

[Diogenes]

My argument regarding Christianity being a major influence on the Development of Science started out as a post hoc ergo propter hoc sort of thing, but over time, there has been some supporting evidence discovered.

James Burk of "Connections" fame, opined that literate monks were invaluable in promoting the rise of science.

The God of Catholic Christendom (Protestants inclusive) & Augustinian theology demands a lawful universe. God being loving, he will not change those laws; they are part and parcel of his eternal and ever-correct design. In contrast, Allah is entirely capricious, and the laws of reality can change at Allah's whim, regardless of the impact of those changes on the things that exist in Allah's creation (i.e., us). An assumption of a lawful and consistent universe is a necessary precondition for science.

Yes. I've heard it argued that the Philosophy of Christianity was extremely important to developing the theoretical underpinnings (Reality is consistent) of Science. That all things obey a set of unchanging laws is taken for granted now, but at the beginning of Christianity, this was not so obvious.

[happyjack27]

Yes. I've heard it argued that the Philosophy of Christianity was extremely important to developing the theoretical underpinnings (Reality is consistent) of Science. That all things obey a set of unchanging laws is taken for granted now, but at the beginning of Christianity, this was not so obvious.

well that mental capacity comes from the spatio-temporal reasoning section of the brain, which is all quite unrelated to religion. also, i don't thinkg that's historically accurate. was it not aristotle who first postulated conservation; the mathemtical equation, as a useful tool of physical description?

[Diogenes]

I postulated a long time ago (15 years or so) that MRI machines would eventually be able to "see" on the molecular level, (Which I think is actually happening now)

Actually MRIs have a rather low resolution. You probably mean CT scanners. Those can now resolve down to the nanometer level.

I think it has been improved greatly. I recall reading an article in the last year or so indicating that MRI was getting good enough to resolve cells and whatnot. CT scanners use XRays if I remember correctly. I would think the resolving power of a CT scanner would be dependent upon it's receiving array.

The Advantage of an MRI over CT is that it is less harmful to the patient.

[Diogenes]

i believe the point is so would the difference. at that point it would be physically identical to an embroynic stem cell complete w/a full set of dna. it _would be_ an embroynic stem cell complete w/a full set of dna. and with proper incubation and what not, you could grow humans out of it just like you could with the original.

because the cell can do that. that's why it's so valuable because from it you can create any other type of cell. if this were not the case it couldn't do that.

Good point. That wouldn't silence objections because they have multiple components. It is not Just that a human life is being destroyed, it is also that people are creating\manipulating human life. Too many people have an aversion to "Frankenstein" like research. It again calls up a worrisome slippery slope.

If you can kill a human life, or create one from a skin cell, then could you not also add wings or horns? could you not manipulate the DNA to make a race of Super Men? Could you make Centaurs, Satyrs, Harpies, Mermaids, etc. ?

Don't tell me that such things wouldn't happen. Humans, being what they are would of course do such things. I recall reading of a Russian scientist experimenting with cross breeding between apes and humans.

Yeah, there's more than one reason why many people look at research along these lines as potentially repugnant.

oh yeah, and if understand correctly we can already clone a human. i mean, the technology is there. it would be really frickin' expensive but we can do it. i read an article once about some rich schmoe who cloned his dead dog back to life. i mean, not the same physical matter, actually, a new one, ofcourse, but genetically identical. and it was of course uber-expensive.

we already have the technology. the question is what we do with it. and that's always the trouble with technology, isn't it?

human cloning would right away through the security of our democracy into question, via the whole "one person one vote". what constitutes one person? and if a clone is not considered "a person", is that not slavery?

Again, an example where movies point the way! "Blade Runner"! The Clones were designed to die. It's a good thing we have writers out there helping us to weigh these heavily ethical conundrums.

[djolds1]

The God of Catholic Christendom (Protestants inclusive) & Augustinian theology demands a lawful universe. God being loving, he will not change those laws; they are part and parcel of his eternal and ever-correct design. In contrast, Allah is entirely capricious, and the laws of reality can change at Allah's whim, regardless of the impact of those changes on the things that exist in Allah's creation (i.e., us). An assumption of a lawful and consistent universe is a necessary precondition for science.

Yes. I've heard it argued that the Philosophy of Christianity was extremely important to developing the theoretical underpinnings (Reality is consistent) of Science. That all things obey a set of unchanging laws is taken for granted now, but at the beginning of Christianity, this was not so obvious.

Christianity and Islam are actually close theological cousins, both coming out of the theological pressure cooker of the Levant/aborted Magian civilization. Islam is essentially the "final" and most fundamentalist/ bare bones version of the creeds to emerge from that region. And Islam is unable to "interpret" its scripture since the Koran is the literal, recited word of God, not the "inspired" word of God filtered through fallible humans. In consequence, Islam rejected the primacy of nature over scripture with the theology of al-Ghazali, in reverse of the Christian practice. Some great developments up until al-Ghazali; algebra, etc. - but none after.

[Diogenes]

Yes. I've heard it argued that the Philosophy of Christianity was extremely important to developing the theoretical underpinnings (Reality is consistent) of Science. That all things obey a set of unchanging laws is taken for granted now, but at the beginning of Christianity, this was not so obvious.

well that mental capacity comes from the spatio-temporal reasoning section of the brain, which is all quite unrelated to religion. also, i don't thinkg that's historically accurate. was it not aristotle who first postulated conservation; the mathemtical equation, as a useful tool of physical description?

In the beginning, the Greeks led the way to civilization. Then they invented Democracy and the whole thing went to sh*t! Of course they gave us Diogenes, so I consider it an even trade.

[Ivy Matt]

i remember seeing a joke somewhre about the use of the word "sufficently" in contexts such as those. "..given a sufficently large..." "given sufficiently advanced technology...." "if you let it sit for a sufficent amount of time...."

i regret that my memory does not serve me well enough here to remember the joke.

Is it, perhaps: 2 + 2 = 5 for sufficiently large values of 2?

Regarding human clones, the laws of guardianship may not be ready to handle them but, apart from that, why should they be treated differently than any other human being? We don't pontificate on whether or not a twin should be considered an individual with rights.

[Diogenes]

The God of Catholic Christendom (Protestants inclusive) & Augustinian theology demands a lawful universe. God being loving, he will not change those laws; they are part and parcel of his eternal and ever-correct design. In contrast, Allah is entirely capricious, and the laws of reality can change at Allah's whim, regardless of the impact of those changes on the things that exist in Allah's creation (i.e., us). An assumption of a lawful and consistent universe is a necessary precondition for science.

Yes. I've heard it argued that the Philosophy of Christianity was extremely important to developing the theoretical underpinnings (Reality is consistent) of Science. That all things obey a set of unchanging laws is taken for granted now, but at the beginning of Christianity, this was not so obvious.

Christianity and Islam are actually close theological cousins, both coming out of the theological pressure cooker of the Levant/aborted Magian civilization. Islam is essentially the "final" and most fundamentalist/ bare bones version of the creeds to emerge from that region. And Islam is unable to "interpret" its scripture since the Koran is the literal, recited word of God, not the "inspired" word of God filtered through fallible humans. In consequence, Islam rejected the primacy of nature over scripture with the theology of al-Ghazali, in reverse of the Christian practice. Some great developments up until al-Ghazali; algebra, etc. - but none after.

One little detail that is somewhat of an embarrassment is the fact they have discovered earlier versions of the Koran that do not jive with the subsequent version. This sort of undermines the notion that it is unchanging.

What's even worse, they can't destroy it, because it might STILL be the Holy Koran. They just keep quiet about it.

[Skipjack]

The Advantage of an MRI over CT is that it is less harmful to the patient.

Of course

If you can kill a human life, or create one from a skin cell, then could you not also add wings or horns? could you not manipulate the DNA to make a race of Super Men? Could you make Centaurs, Satyrs, Harpies, Mermaids, etc. ?

That is very silly. There is no point to something like that and it would be a very costy kind of fun without a purpose.
Besides, you can not just add an remove things at will. Horns need a lot of things in place to grow correctly and that might come at a price.
Same for your other fantasy creatures.

On the superman thing: What exactly is a super man? How do you define that at the genetic level? There is no single "smart" gene, e.g.
You may be able to grow more muscle rather easily though. That can be done with living humans already too though. So no need to genetically manipulate an embryo.
I see more use in correcting real genetic deficiencies. That would not make a superhuman, but it would somewhat cover for the degeneration present in our society right now. There is nothing wrong with fixing defect genes.
Fixing genetic illnesses is simply providing a cure for a patient. I dont see anything moraly bad in this. But some leftists and religious people do. They would much rather let people suffer than use genetics to help them and then they call that "ethics".
Being near or far sighted does not help anybody, or make anybody a better person. Fixing that wont make you a superhuman either. It will just save you a lot of money (or in socialised medicine countries, it will save the government a lot of money).
I am very nearsighted (-11, -11) and I would be darn happy if someone would have fixed me at a genetic level before I was born.

[happyjack27]

i remember seeing a joke somewhre about the use of the word "sufficently" in contexts such as those. "..given a sufficently large..." "given sufficiently advanced technology...." "if you let it sit for a sufficent amount of time...."

i regret that my memory does not serve me well enough here to remember the joke.

Is it, perhaps: 2 + 2 = 5 for sufficiently large values of 2?

Regarding human clones, the laws of guardianship may not be ready to handle them but, apart from that, why should they be treated differently than any other human being? We don't pontificate on whether or not a twin should be considered an individual with rights.

beause of one person one vote. a rich person could use clongin to increase their respresentation. their clone will obviously vote the sam e way. twins it was just mother nature doing it and you can't eery well blame her.

[Skipjack]

a rich person could use clongin to increase their respresentation

This is just ludicrous.
You understand that a clone of anybody would not automatically share their knowledge or experience? Experience and knowledge does have an influence on the way we think as well (though not as big as the leftists claim).
So your rich persion would have to somehow transfer his knowledge and experiences to the clone as well. I dont think that this will ever be possible, but even if it was, it would be costly.
Of course even a clone also has to grow from a fertilized egg to a full grown human. That takes time and energy and it would be very costy.
No, I think that for a rich person it would be much cheaper and more efficient to simply do what they do now: Pay and bribe people to do what they want (e.g. vote a certain way). Or even better pay and bribe the politicians to do what they want and save themselves the hassle of voting all together.
Costs much less and can be done much quicker.

[happyjack27]

a rich person could use clongin to increase their respresentation

This is just ludicrous.
You understand that a clone of anybody would not automatically share their knowledge or experience? Experience and knowledge does have an influence on the way we think as well (though not as big as the leftists claim).
So your rich persion would have to somehow transfer his knowledge and experiences to the clone as well. I dont think that this will ever be possible, but even if it was, it would be costly.
Of course even a clone also has to grow from a fertilized egg to a full grown human. That takes time and energy and it would be very costy.
No, I think that for a rich person it would be much cheaper and more efficient to simply do what they do now: Pay and bribe people to do what they want (e.g. vote a certain way). Or even better pay and bribe the politicians to do what they want and save themselves the hassle of voting all together.
Costs much less and can be done much quicker.

i didn't say that it was at all practical. i was just giving an example of an ethical conundrum that might be introduced, to demonstrate that it does introduce non-trivial questions.