Deus te Amat Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 (edited) [quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1447205' date='Jan 17 2008, 08:45 PM']Wow, you're quite knowledgeable w/ this particular subject in this particular situation. Or at least you sound so. Thanks for the ranting/input![/quote] I like science. Alot. DNA also interests me... because it is such a vital part of us, yet everything relating to it can be considered morally wrong. lol. Edited January 18, 2008 by Deus_te_Amat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pontifite 7 of 10 Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 [quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1447205' date='Jan 17 2008, 08:45 PM']Wow, you're quite knowledgeable w/ this particular subject in this particular situation. Or at least you sound so. Thanks for the ranting/input![/quote] I read a fictional book called "Maximum Ride: The Angle Experiment" These six kids were raised with bird and human DNA just like these new "cybrids". They were abused to the extreme, but its possible that the cybrids won't have as many human rights if any. We need action! We need to petition! We need to become british citizens first, but something needs to be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deus te Amat Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 Another question. Would the trait for cow horns be passed long? That'd be awkward. It might not appear in the first generation, but if they figuered out a way to get these hybrids to bread, i bet horns and tails would be showing up in the F2 generation... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Servant of the Secret Fire Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 (edited) [quote name='Deus_te_Amat' post='1447195' date='Jan 18 2008, 02:16 AM']Half of it's chromosomes would be taken from an animal. There is something called "genetic imprinting" which is where the parent leaves a genetic mark on it's DNA. The genetic code for the two species might be extremely similar, however, there are other factors that cause the extreme disparities between species. The offspring would not be the equivalent to a "genetic defect". It would be a mutant in itself. I cant even imagine what this could mean, or how the differences would reveal themselves. However, I dont think it would be human. The human might be the superior species intellectually, but what if the genes of the other animal were dominant over the human gene? Those traits would be shown. Also... this might actually cause spontaneous abortion, because, frankly, i dont know how the genes would be compatable. Codominance? That means it would be half human and half... Sorry I'm ranting.[/quote] Would half it's chromosomes come from the animal? As I understand it the nucleus of the animal egg is being removed and the nucleus of a human cell being inserted. From a biological point of view that would seem to be a distinction from, say, combining human sperm with an animal egg. Now I know little biology so I ask this in all humility. It seems to me that the risk of some traits being passed along (while uncertain) is just a small part of the evil here and it is probably better to focus on the more central issues of human dignity. Certainly in the media reports about the legislation currently going through parliament there seems to be a distinction being made between "types" of hydrids, (ie between the current proposals and say human sperm/animal egg or vice versa) which is fair enough biologically but of course the moral issues go way beyond such distinctions. Sacred Music Man - you asked what the point was. As I understand it, the point is to provide a new source of embryonic stem cells. Currently the supply is limited by the number of human eggs available. So one evil (the exploitation of women for their eggs) is answered with another. Edited January 18, 2008 by Servant of the Secret Fire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatherineM Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 They say that what they are trying to do is create a way of engineering replacement organs that would have the genetic code of the person that needs them so that they wouldn't have to take anti-rejection drugs or wait for a donor. It could also be used to grow new tendons or ligaments for people who have torn them. It could potentially be used to grow a new uterus for someone who had a diseased one removed, or I suppose even a new arm for someone whose arm got blow up. Those are all such heroic/humanitarian issues that we are coaxed into believing this is such a good idea. If I knew that was all that was going to be used with the technology, I would be much more in favor of this horrific experimentation, but I know it is the same as other technologies. Once the genie is out of the bottle, you can't know what will be the end result. It would have been nice if TNT had only been used for mine work or demolitions, but we all know that more damage has been done with explosives than good. That's why Nobel set up his foundation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thessalonian Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 damnable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now