Human Cloning
-
John Theal wrote: The egg will then be stimulated to develop into an embryo - which will develop for six days. Now, does anyone mind telling me how you stimulate an egg into an embryo without fertilizing it? I'm curious to know. Jeremy Falcon
http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/SU/parthenogenesis.html[^] Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
-
http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/SU/parthenogenesis.html[^] Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
Interesting link. This is my favorite part... "Considerable research is also underway to clone stem cells derived from non-embryonic tissue." Still this kinda getting off base with what you and my original points were. The process whether or not deemed ethical will still have the side effects down the road. Either way, I learned something today. I'm still trying to figure out what to make of it though. Jeremy Falcon
-
My comments were made within the context of whether someone being concerned with a technology's effect is equivalent to wanting to prevent technological advance. In the article mentioned, the dangers involved are minimal, but I drew in the possible effects of progressing beyond this. Genetic engineering of our food supply or of our offspring might have devestating effects, beyond what might be immediately recognized in initial testing. Jeremey made the point that we might be planting the seeds of our eventual destruction, I agreed. In one of your posts you mention the potential catastrophic effect of eliminating the population of all the ants in the world. What if a genetically enhanced bacteria that was designed to eat oil spills inadvertantely caused this kind of destruction? Or look at the effects of large scale fertilizer usage on the ocean's chemistry. The introduction of large quantities of fertilizer to increase crop yields (and make greener golf courses) has created vast areas where ocean life cannot sustain itself. My point was that we cannot forsee many of the effects of what our technologies might cause. When we created fire or developed electricity we may have started on a road to destruction, but with our current technologies we stand at a brink. As a "Physicist at Large" surely you recognize the potential dangers of some of the things Mankind can do to itself now that it couldn't do 100 years ago. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
Doug Goulden wrote: but I drew in the possible effects of progressing beyond this. Ditto. Doug Goulden wrote: Genetic engineering of our food supply or of our offspring might have devastating effects, beyond what might be immediately recognized in initial testing. Totally agree. I guess my whole point comes down to when is enough, enough? At what point do we cross the line? I mean, one mistake could destroy the entire human race for all we know. [edit] Oh, that and human life must be valued. But that argument was based on the concept of fertilized embryos. From what I understand, that's how it started but not the direction they want to go. Either way, I don't think people are giving this enough thought IMO. [/edit] Doug Goulden wrote: My point was that we cannot forsee many of the effects of what our technologies might cause. When we created fire or developed electricity we may have started on a road to destruction, but with our current technologies we stand at a brink. Well said. Jeremy Falcon
-
John Theal wrote: Yet you admittedly do not have a concrete definition of what life is. When did I admit this? I do believe this is the second stage of human life with a zygote being the first. Now, this may be "non-intelligent" as of yet, but I don't believe that should be the determining factor when screwing around with human life. John Theal wrote: How do you propose to participate in such a discussion when you are not even prepared for the debate? What a load of subjective crap. Points man -- stick to them. John Theal wrote: Unfertilized embryos inside a female are considered "life" under the definition provided by the Merriam-Webster dictionary Oh really? Because I don't see it there. Cickety[^] By the way there's no such thing as an unfertilized embryo. At least educate yourself first. John Theal wrote: The egg is then developed into an embryo and destroyed. And just how do you think that process comes about -- magic? John Theal wrote: It would seem that stem cells are injected into the egg and allowed to divide. This is not, by definition fertilization of the egg, rather it is allowing cells to undergo division within a medium. You don't know what you're talking about. Stem call research isn't the same thing as reproductive cloning. It's for producing stem cells to make tissues and what not from embryonic cells. http://www.isscr.org/science/faq.htm#14a[^] And yes, embryos are fertilized already for the second time. John Theal wrote: Not telling people how to live their life in a healthy manner has nothing to do with saving the lives of those suffering from cancer. Why not? If you help somebody have a better life after they get to cancer that will help them fight it or at least allow them to enjoy the rest of their days better, why is this not a concern to you? John Theal wrote: There is a very important delineation. Lives are not lost until the person is ill. What about the people
Okay. I see that misunderstanding things is a pattern with you. Consequently, this will be my last post on this thread as I don't have time to introduce you to the basics of scientific research. Jeremy Falcon wrote: Oh really? Because I don't see it there. Then what is this? an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction Oh but wait, I guess human egg cells cannot grow, react to stimuli or reproduce, right? :rolleyes: Jeremy Falcon wrote: By the way there's no such thing as an unfertilized embryo. At least educate yourself first. Me educate myself? :laugh: Maybe YOU should educate YOURSELF: Unfertilized embryo[^] An excerpt from the article (which happens to appear in a peer-reviewed journal)... Researchers develop primate stem cells from unfertilized embryo Researchers from Wake Forest University School of Medicine and Advanced Cell Technology (ACT) of Worcester, Mass. report in today's Science that they have developed a large variety of specialized cell types -- including heart and brain cells -- from embryonic monkey stem cells through a process called parthenogenesis. Like I said, you have trouble grasping concepts. Jeremy Falcon wrote: wrote: Once they are ill, that is when treatment impacts whether they live or die. Wrong again, studies have shown that after AIDs set in, people with a positive attitude in general tend to live longer. Apparently, there are other factors involved here. Like I said before, you attempt to setup strawman arguments. The context of my statement was clearly applied to the topic of cancer which, it so happens, treatment impacts whether they live or die. :rolleyes:
-
Okay. I see that misunderstanding things is a pattern with you. Consequently, this will be my last post on this thread as I don't have time to introduce you to the basics of scientific research. Jeremy Falcon wrote: Oh really? Because I don't see it there. Then what is this? an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction Oh but wait, I guess human egg cells cannot grow, react to stimuli or reproduce, right? :rolleyes: Jeremy Falcon wrote: By the way there's no such thing as an unfertilized embryo. At least educate yourself first. Me educate myself? :laugh: Maybe YOU should educate YOURSELF: Unfertilized embryo[^] An excerpt from the article (which happens to appear in a peer-reviewed journal)... Researchers develop primate stem cells from unfertilized embryo Researchers from Wake Forest University School of Medicine and Advanced Cell Technology (ACT) of Worcester, Mass. report in today's Science that they have developed a large variety of specialized cell types -- including heart and brain cells -- from embryonic monkey stem cells through a process called parthenogenesis. Like I said, you have trouble grasping concepts. Jeremy Falcon wrote: wrote: Once they are ill, that is when treatment impacts whether they live or die. Wrong again, studies have shown that after AIDs set in, people with a positive attitude in general tend to live longer. Apparently, there are other factors involved here. Like I said before, you attempt to setup strawman arguments. The context of my statement was clearly applied to the topic of cancer which, it so happens, treatment impacts whether they live or die. :rolleyes:
John Theal wrote: Okay. I see that misunderstanding things is a pattern with you. Consequently, this will be my last post on this thread as I don't have time to introduce you to the basics of scientific research. My understanding of how they created the embryo has little to do with my first point which created this whole mess in the first place. And, I've already stated that I was corrected about the fertilization process in another thread. I would that would be in line with scientific principles than being pigheaded. However, my original point still stands. This is opening up a can worms. In fact they started with normal, fertilized embryos. That's should be a clue that regard for human life ain't what it used to be. Be, go ahead and refuse to listen to what I'm saying. John Theal wrote: Oh but wait, I guess human egg cells cannot grow, react to stimuli or reproduce, right? At the time I said that I was under the impression eggs had to be fertilized to grow. Apparently, that's not the case. Either way, by your definition you call it life, so the point is moot. John Theal wrote: Maybe YOU should educate YOURSELF: Fine, I'll take that. John Theal wrote: But I guess that's why I have a Ph.D. and you don't. Well, if that is not one of the dumbest, most insecure statements I ever heard. Are you really that insecure you have to rely on a piece of paper to feel important? That's pathetic you big baby. John Theal wrote: Like I said, you have trouble grasping concepts. Apparently you do too, since my original point wasn't about fertilization. But, you sidetracked and I followed. John Theal wrote: The context of my statement was clearly applied to the topic of cancer which, it so happens, Oh really? The topic in hand was not cancer. Cancer was used as an example. Just as I used AIDs as an example. Regardless, the point still stands, even with cancer being healthy will allow them to enjoy the rest of their days better and it'll help them fight it off better. John Theal wrote: treatment impacts whether they live or die. So does being healthy, and on two different levels. One, prevention, and two, helping them get over it. I never said treatment wasn't effective, I said there are alternatives. I guess you're too busy wanting to believe you're always right to actually listen.
-
My comments were made within the context of whether someone being concerned with a technology's effect is equivalent to wanting to prevent technological advance. In the article mentioned, the dangers involved are minimal, but I drew in the possible effects of progressing beyond this. Genetic engineering of our food supply or of our offspring might have devestating effects, beyond what might be immediately recognized in initial testing. Jeremey made the point that we might be planting the seeds of our eventual destruction, I agreed. In one of your posts you mention the potential catastrophic effect of eliminating the population of all the ants in the world. What if a genetically enhanced bacteria that was designed to eat oil spills inadvertantely caused this kind of destruction? Or look at the effects of large scale fertilizer usage on the ocean's chemistry. The introduction of large quantities of fertilizer to increase crop yields (and make greener golf courses) has created vast areas where ocean life cannot sustain itself. My point was that we cannot forsee many of the effects of what our technologies might cause. When we created fire or developed electricity we may have started on a road to destruction, but with our current technologies we stand at a brink. As a "Physicist at Large" surely you recognize the potential dangers of some of the things Mankind can do to itself now that it couldn't do 100 years ago. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
Isn't it interesting? In this post, all I did was agree with you and I get downvoted and you don't. Makes me wonder about them voters. :) Jeremy Falcon
-
John Theal wrote: Okay. I see that misunderstanding things is a pattern with you. Consequently, this will be my last post on this thread as I don't have time to introduce you to the basics of scientific research. My understanding of how they created the embryo has little to do with my first point which created this whole mess in the first place. And, I've already stated that I was corrected about the fertilization process in another thread. I would that would be in line with scientific principles than being pigheaded. However, my original point still stands. This is opening up a can worms. In fact they started with normal, fertilized embryos. That's should be a clue that regard for human life ain't what it used to be. Be, go ahead and refuse to listen to what I'm saying. John Theal wrote: Oh but wait, I guess human egg cells cannot grow, react to stimuli or reproduce, right? At the time I said that I was under the impression eggs had to be fertilized to grow. Apparently, that's not the case. Either way, by your definition you call it life, so the point is moot. John Theal wrote: Maybe YOU should educate YOURSELF: Fine, I'll take that. John Theal wrote: But I guess that's why I have a Ph.D. and you don't. Well, if that is not one of the dumbest, most insecure statements I ever heard. Are you really that insecure you have to rely on a piece of paper to feel important? That's pathetic you big baby. John Theal wrote: Like I said, you have trouble grasping concepts. Apparently you do too, since my original point wasn't about fertilization. But, you sidetracked and I followed. John Theal wrote: The context of my statement was clearly applied to the topic of cancer which, it so happens, Oh really? The topic in hand was not cancer. Cancer was used as an example. Just as I used AIDs as an example. Regardless, the point still stands, even with cancer being healthy will allow them to enjoy the rest of their days better and it'll help them fight it off better. John Theal wrote: treatment impacts whether they live or die. So does being healthy, and on two different levels. One, prevention, and two, helping them get over it. I never said treatment wasn't effective, I said there are alternatives. I guess you're too busy wanting to believe you're always right to actually listen.
I'm only going to respond to one point here, because I don't care about the rest. Jeremy Falcon wrote: Well, if that is not one of the dumbest, most insecure statements I ever heard. Are you really that insecure you have to rely on a piece of paper to feel important? That's pathetic you big baby. -------------------- So let's follow the conversation here and see if we can come up with the events that caused you to say the above quote. John Theal wrote: Unfertilized embryos inside a female are considered "life" under the definition provided by the Merriam-Webster dictionary Jeremy Falcon wrote: Oh really? Because I don't see it there. Cickety[^] By the way there's no such thing as an unfertilized embryo. At least educate yourself first. John Theal wrote: The egg is then developed into an embryo and destroyed. Jeremy Falcon wrote: And just how do you think that process comes about -- magic? John Theal wrote: It would seem that stem cells are injected into the egg and allowed to divide. This is not, by definition fertilization of the egg, rather it is allowing cells to undergo division within a medium. Jeremy Falcon wrote: You don't know what you're talking about. Stem call research isn't the same thing as reproductive cloning. It's for producing stem cells to make tissues and what not from embryonic cells. http://www.isscr.org/science/faq.htm#14a\[^\] And yes, embryos are fertilized already for the second time. ----------------------- So you attack his intelligence twice (while asserting a point that isn't even correct) by saying he needs to educate himself, and he responds back that he is indeed a hell of a lot more educated than you are, and you call him a baby for it? Wow, it sounds like you're the fucking baby. Quit crying about it, he obviously knows a lot more about this than you or I do, and when you brought out the insults he called your ignorant bluff and proved conclusively that you are an idiot. Simple as that. I still haven't found what I'm lookin' for - U2
-
I'm only going to respond to one point here, because I don't care about the rest. Jeremy Falcon wrote: Well, if that is not one of the dumbest, most insecure statements I ever heard. Are you really that insecure you have to rely on a piece of paper to feel important? That's pathetic you big baby. -------------------- So let's follow the conversation here and see if we can come up with the events that caused you to say the above quote. John Theal wrote: Unfertilized embryos inside a female are considered "life" under the definition provided by the Merriam-Webster dictionary Jeremy Falcon wrote: Oh really? Because I don't see it there. Cickety[^] By the way there's no such thing as an unfertilized embryo. At least educate yourself first. John Theal wrote: The egg is then developed into an embryo and destroyed. Jeremy Falcon wrote: And just how do you think that process comes about -- magic? John Theal wrote: It would seem that stem cells are injected into the egg and allowed to divide. This is not, by definition fertilization of the egg, rather it is allowing cells to undergo division within a medium. Jeremy Falcon wrote: You don't know what you're talking about. Stem call research isn't the same thing as reproductive cloning. It's for producing stem cells to make tissues and what not from embryonic cells. http://www.isscr.org/science/faq.htm#14a\[^\] And yes, embryos are fertilized already for the second time. ----------------------- So you attack his intelligence twice (while asserting a point that isn't even correct) by saying he needs to educate himself, and he responds back that he is indeed a hell of a lot more educated than you are, and you call him a baby for it? Wow, it sounds like you're the fucking baby. Quit crying about it, he obviously knows a lot more about this than you or I do, and when you brought out the insults he called your ignorant bluff and proved conclusively that you are an idiot. Simple as that. I still haven't found what I'm lookin' for - U2
I`m SO there wrote: So you attack his intelligence twice (while asserting a point that isn't even correct) by saying he needs to educate himself, and he responds back that he is indeed a hell of a lot more educated than you are, and you call him a baby for it? No, being wrong on one front does not automatically mean I'm wrong on the other front. Nor does it automatically mean I'm uneducated. To make this assumption on your part is just naive. I said I was wrong, but that is not what my comment was about. He belittles me by saying he is superior because he has a PhD, and I find that to be a load of crap. Paper is paper, and one cannot conclude with 100% that it is indicative of being extremely educated or mentally superior. Also, what if the PhD was in history? Does that mean he's superior in every subject on the planet? I don't think so. My point is, it's just a stupid piece of paper. The education is more important than the title unless the title is all you're after. I`m SO there wrote: Quit crying about it I didn't cry about being wrong, and I was wrong on only one front. In fact, I said "Fine, I'll take that" to his insult. Quit reading what you want to get out of it. I`m SO there wrote: he obviously knows a lot more about this than you or I do Well, from what I gather about his other posts and the way he described it, I'd wager not. But hey, it's subjective, ya never know. He happened to be right on one point. Go him, but it doesn't make him a god. I`m SO there wrote: and when you brought out the insults he called your ignorant bluff and proved conclusively that you are an idiot. Well, he started the subtle belittling first, but I won't let details get in the way of your stupidity. And, if I'm an idiot for being able to admit I may be wrong about something - regardless of circumstance - well I guess I'm an idiot then. Conversely, I could say you're an idiot for jumping to conclusions yourself. But, hey why state the obvious when we are having such fun with this conversation. Jeremy Falcon
-
Just a clarification. If it is an embryo, it has already been fertilized. Someone needs a biology class. :)
Somebody does need a biology class. It's not Colin though, it's you. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-01/wfub-rdp012502.php[^] Oops. [edit]clarification - the link credit goes to John Theal, I did not look this up.[/edit] Chris Richardson
-
Somebody does need a biology class. It's not Colin though, it's you. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-01/wfub-rdp012502.php[^] Oops. [edit]clarification - the link credit goes to John Theal, I did not look this up.[/edit] Chris Richardson
Hi Chris, Well I have had multiple biology classes. Just because someone writes an article using terminology incorrectly doesn't mean I'm wrong. The definition of an embryo has always been the folowing: 1. The fertilized egg of a vertebrate animal. 2. In humans, the pre-fetal product of conception up to the third month of pregnancy. Don't beleive me, go check the dictionary. :)