Embyonic stem cell research

[vidcc]

story (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/24/science/24stem.html?_r=5&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=login)


Biologists have developed a technique for establishing colonies of human embryonic stem cells from an early human embryo without destroying it. This method, if confirmed in other laboratories, would seem to remove the principal objection to the research.

So it looks like we can do embryonic stem cell research without "murdering the embryo"



Emily Lawrimore, a White House spokeswoman, suggested that the new procedure would not satisfy the objections of Mr. Bush, who vetoed legislation in July that would have expanded federally financed embryonic stem cell research. Though Ms. Lawrimore called it encouraging that scientists were moving away from destroying embryos, she said: “Any use of human embryos for research purposes raises serious ethical questions. This technique does not resolve those concerns.”


I never understood the argument that we couldn't use public funds for research using embryos that were going to be discarded anyway, but apparently there is some other "ethical" problem with just taking one cell and leaving the embryo alive and unharmed......... I am assuming they would still be taking the cells from the excess embryos , so would the unharmed embryo then still be discarded? :unsure:

We take blood and tissue from humans all the time for tests, is it unethical to use that for research?

Anyone got any idea what ethical problem there could be ? serious question

[limesqueezer]

Religious problem. Bush even says if a women gets raped and a she gets a child she has to keep it, but mr. bush says that only because he knows where he lives and what he is told to say, not that he is a christian, i don't belive that. They are afraid that humans could clone humans. Than why do u need god, its not like god created me, i know who did haha. But let me know when we can clone a human brain. Cloning may be good for medical purpose but i dubt that this will be like that very soon.

[vidcc]

What religious problem?

The new technique would be performed on a two-day-old embryo, after the fertilized egg has divided into eight cells, known as blastomeres. In fertility clinics, where the embryo is available outside the woman in the normal course of in vitro fertilization, one of these blastomeres can be removed for diagnostic tests, like for Down syndrome.

The embryo, now with seven cells, can be implanted in the woman if no defect is found. Many such embryos have grown into apparently healthy babies over the 10 years or so the diagnostic tests have been used.

Up to now, human embryonic stem cells have been derived at a later stage of development, when the embryo consists of about 150 cells. Both this stage, called the blastocyst, and the earlier eight-cell stage, occur before the embryo implants in the wall of the womb. Harvesting the blastocyst-stage cells kills the embryo, a principal objection of those who oppose the research.

The embyo is unharmed and if implanted into a woman will grow normally.

[Mr JP Fugley]

I never understood the argument that we couldn't use public funds for research using embryos that were going to be discarded anyway

That's because you don't think of the unborn as being human beings. Some people do. What you would then be discussing is human beings who were going to be discarded anyway.

Medical science made great leaps forward by the research of nazi scientists, researching on human beings who were going to be discarded anyway.

[Busyman™]

I never understood the argument that we couldn't use public funds for research using embryos that were going to be discarded anyway

The reason why there are cemetaries. People regard a grave site and a person's remains as being the person.

There is an attachment to what has lived.

McDonald's throws out food everyday but a McDonald's worker cannot give the food away.

I say that anyone that makes stink about an embryo (that's going to get discarded anyway) adopt it or STFU about furthering medical research. Some have and I applaud them....reallly.

"Hey don't use that embryo for medical research. Throw it out." :crazy:

[brenda]

The difficulty is that we all have pretty much different views on where to draw the line regarding the issue of what counts as a human being and what doesn't.

Pro life campaigners and those of religious persuation regard the very moment that a sperm penetrates an egg as being the beginning a a human life. At the opposite end of the scale The Abortion Act allows abortion up to 24 weeks, and up to and even during birth where the unborn child is thought to be disabled. Most of us are caught on the scale somewhere between these two reference points and as usual the religion, science and politics are the main players whilst the opinion of the man/woman on the street holds little sway.

[gamer4eva]

Religious problem. Bush even says if a women gets raped and a she gets a child she has to keep it, but mr. bush says that only because he knows where he lives and what he is told to say, not that he is a christian, i don't belive that. They are afraid that humans could clone humans. Than why do u need god, its not like god created me, i know who did haha. But let me know when we can clone a human brain. Cloning may be good for medical purpose but i dubt that this will be like that very soon.

Its going to be impossible to clone humans.....even if they research for years it won't happen.:lol: That theory is just as ridicilous as time travel.:D

[tracydani3]

Its going to be impossible to clone humans.....even if they research for years it won't happen.:lol: That theory is just as ridicilous as time travel.:D

Do you say that because you don't believe the end product of a human cloning would be a consious person with the ability to think? Or because you don't think it is physicaly possible to have a living person as a result of cloning? Or are you just saying that the end person would not be identical in every way?

Personaly I think that if it isn't already possible, it will be sometime soon. I also do not have a problem with them doing it. Although I do think maybe we should focus on other things, such as ensuring we have the space/resources/ability to properly accomodate more people to begin with.

We can't get along with the people we already have here on earth, no need to hurry figuring ways to make yet more:lol:

[gamer4eva]

Its going to be impossible to clone humans.....even if they research for years it won't happen.:lol: That theory is just as ridicilous as time travel.:D

Do you say that because you don't believe the end product of a human cloning would be a consious person with the ability to think? Or because you don't think it is physicaly possible to have a living person as a result of cloning? Or are you just saying that the end person would not be identical in every way?

Personaly I think that if it isn't already possible, it will be sometime soon. I also do not have a problem with them doing it. Although I do think maybe we should focus on other things, such as ensuring we have the space/resources/ability to properly accomodate more people to begin with.

We can't get along with the people we already have here on earth, no need to hurry figuring ways to make yet more:lol:

I would have to agree that if if cloning was possible then it would be a huge breakthrough and it would be like giving life. Also it could be used as a method of saving lives. But the fact that life is brought is hard to imagine....i mean i would believe that its not just as simple as assembling the bodily parts together......if so you could chop parts of each human and stick em together with super glue but...it is impossible. Also the clone would not be concious and it would lack the ability to think. I think no sorry i know that if cloning is possible then bringing back the dead would mean the same. You could take the cells of the dying person and bring him back. But no tis all impossible.:lol: :lol: :lol:

[limesqueezer]

Well i said that human brain can't be cloned, they don't even know how its made , they only guess by now. No brain no human. :D

[tracydani3]

But the fact that life is brought is hard to imagine....i mean i would believe that its not just as simple as assembling the bodily parts together......if so you could chop parts of each human and stick em together with super glue but...it is impossible. Also the clone would not be concious and it would lack the ability to think. I think no sorry i know that if cloning is possible then bringing back the dead would mean the same. You could take the cells of the dying person and bring him back. But no tis all impossible.:lol: :lol: :lol:

Ahh.. I understand what you are saying now.

I don't believe the idea is to clone a bunch of body parts and put them together into one person. If that was the case, I would tend to agree with you.

As far as I understand it, there are 2 possibilities.

1- Clone an entire person all in one shot from the cells of one person.

2- Clone parts of a person to graft back on to them or another person or to grow materials in a person to fix parts that are wrecked.

I suppose another idea is to clone a whole persons body and put the original persons brain into it, but I think that will be a ways away:D

[gamer4eva]

Cells need to grow right and you have to believe that cells cannot just be created out of nothing. The whole basis of cloning comes from cell division which is the bodys natural way of reproducing cells. Same thing with bacteria...they need time to grow and divide. Which precisely leads to the point that all the cells cannot be cloned in one shot because of the fact that the cells cannot replictate at a fast enough rate to create tissues....organs....or organisms. Unless there is another method which i never heard of. Its probably possible to clone a certain area for example the skin which is a collective amount of the same cells but you see creating a human from cell to cell is dammn difficult. You have to think how many cells there are in the body. Which then leads to the conclusion IMPOSSIBLE.
I need to look up on the biology books. Also they did manage to clone sheep but what they did was use the embryo of dolly the sheep and insert her cell (dont know which one) and it grew and it was genetically identical to dolly.
This is a clone but not the same as how human cloning can be achieved.

[vidcc]

That's because you don't think of the unborn as being human beings. Some people do. What you would then be discussing is human beings who were going to be discarded anyway.

Medical science made great leaps forward by the research of nazi scientists, researching on human beings who were going to be discarded anyway.
I don't regard a clump of cells sitting in a petri dish as a human being.I view a clump of cells in a petri dish differently from a baby growing inside a womb. The point is that those clumps of cells will not live. They have no nervous system, no brain, no organs, no limbs, no capacity of thought or feeling, feel no pain and will never be implanted into a womb. The "adoption scheme" is admirable but doesn't even scratch the surface of excess embryos and I think it more "immoral" to just discard them than use those cells to save life.
Now you could ban IVF treatment because it discards all these "human beings" but think of the humans alive today that would not be without it.
All the Bush veto did was stop public money funding research. It did not ban private money funding it. Using the "immoral" card is odd because if it's "murder" to fund it publically it is murder to fund it privately.

However that looks like a moot point now as they can get the cells without destroying the embryo....so what I am wondering is what is the ethical objection now?

[Mr JP Fugley]

That's because you don't think of the unborn as being human beings. Some people do. What you would then be discussing is human beings who were going to be discarded anyway.

Medical science made great leaps forward by the research of nazi scientists, researching on human beings who were going to be discarded anyway.
I don't regard a clump of cells sitting in a petri dish as a human being.I view a clump of cells in a petri dish differently from a baby growing inside a womb. The point is that those clumps of cells will not live. They have no nervous system, no brain, no organs, no limbs, no capacity of thought or feeling, feel no pain and will never be implanted into a womb. The "adoption scheme" is admirable but doesn't even scratch the surface of excess embryos and I think it more "immoral" to just discard them than use those cells to save life.
Now you could ban IVF treatment because it discards all these "human beings" but think of the humans alive today that would not be without it.
All the Bush veto did was stop public money funding research. It did not ban private money funding it. Using the "immoral" card is odd because if it's "murder" to fund it publically it is murder to fund it privately.

However that looks like a moot point now as they can get the cells without destroying the embryo....so what I am wondering is what is the ethical objection now?

I take it from "They have no nervous system, no brain, no organs, no limbs, no capacity of thought or feeling, feel no pain" that these are the things which, in your mind, define what a human being is.

[Mr JP Fugley]

The difficulty is that we all have pretty much different views on where to draw the line regarding the issue of what counts as a human being and what doesn't.

Pro life campaigners and those of religious persuation regard the very moment that a sperm penetrates an egg as being the beginning a a human life. At the opposite end of the scale The Abortion Act allows abortion up to 24 weeks, and up to and even during birth where the unborn child is thought to be disabled. Most of us are caught on the scale somewhere between these two reference points and as usual the religion, science and politics are the main players whilst the opinion of the man/woman on the street holds little sway.

I hear what you are saying and take your point, however for me it is a matter of logic, not of religion. If one takes the position that a clump of cells in a petri dish is not a human being (obviously I disagree with that), then it must become one at some point. Is that point at the moment of birth, patently not, the baby is no different than it was an hour previously. Other than it is outside of it's mother's womb.

So the logical position must be that it becomes a human being some time before birth. So what event causes a human being to come into existence. When is the human being there.

I can answer what my opinion is, at the moment of conception. I can think of no logical reason to think it is any other moment, so I must conclude it is then. I would be happy to hear, from those who disagree, when they think it happens.

[limesqueezer]

It all depends on politics if they unban the law, like it was never stopped for real. Probably some rich folks already have reserved in advance some future extra organs like they bought pieces of land on mars. Science, faith and politics have to decide now, final world goes to politics. Politics influenced by church, what is normal and after bible. Nobody religious wants to clone jesus, but they already have an answer for that. They say jesus isn't a simply a matter of genetics. http://www.snopes.com/religion/clone.htm
Religion was always against science, the world would be flat and the heads of wizards(scientists) and witches would roll if it was after em all the time.
U know on how many pages u can read: Embryo is not human life.
Some comments on human embryo clone: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/1676559.stm
At end nobody can stop science.

[tracydani3]

Also they did manage to clone sheep but what they did was use the embryo of dolly the sheep and insert her cell (dont know which one) and it grew and it was genetically identical to dolly.


That's pretty much what I was refering to as far as human cloning was concerned. If they can do it with a sheep, they can do it with a human.

The other method you are refering to would be a bit more difficult:P But I wouldn't say beyond possibility.

[gamer4eva]

I can guarantee that human cloning is just one of those fairy tales. :lol:
I hope i am not the only one here that agrees on that matter. Humans and sheep are totally different. Humans are more complex....if cloning was as simple as it was with dolly heck i would have 30 of me working and earning me money.:D

[Mr JP Fugley]

I can guarantee that human cloning is just one of those fairy tales. :lol:
I hope i am not the only one here that agrees on that matter. Humans and sheep are totally different. Humans are more complex.

I take it you are joking in all of this.

[Barbarossa]

I can guarantee that human cloning is just one of those fairy tales. :lol:
I hope i am not the only one here that agrees on that matter. Humans and sheep are totally different. Humans are more complex....if cloning was as simple as it was with dolly heck i would have 30 of me working and earning me money.:D

I would classify you as ever-so-slightly simpler than Dolly the sheep, if that's OK ;)

[MagicNakor]

I can guarantee that human cloning is just one of those fairy tales. :lol:
I hope i am not the only one here that agrees on that matter. Humans and sheep are totally different. Humans are more complex....if cloning was as simple as it was with dolly heck i would have 30 of me working and earning me money.:D

http://simpsons.skewsme.com/img/homer_clones.jpg

Sorry.

/coat

:shuriken:

[ilw]

human clones exist already.

Fact

[JPaul]

Identical twins are genetically .... identical. Well as near it as makes no difference

Actually that's an interesting side issue. How often is one identical twin gay and the other not.

[Snee]

I'm fairly certain I read somewhere that there are stem cells in fatty tissues on human adults, too.

Could be wrong tho' :unsure:



And could you elaborate, ilw?

Last I saw, what clones have been produced thus far (Dolly, etc.) still come with some defects. Sounds funky doing that with people when the science isn't exact enough, if it isn't.

[j2k4]

Identical twins are genetically .... identical. Well as near it as makes no difference

Actually that's an interesting side issue. How often is one identical twin gay and the other not.

Our 60 Minutes just did a segment on that very thing, however, I didn't catch much more than that, detail-wise, so it can't be too interesting. :huh:

[Busyman™]

Our 60 Minutes just did a segment on that very thing, however, I didn't catch much more than that, detail-wise, so it can't be too interesting. :huh:
It showed 2 instances of twins (one set identical, one not) of them being gay/straight. The identical twins were in their 20s, the other set were much younger (single digits). One of the younger set had bed netting, play with dolls, and loved pinks. The other boy had G.I.Joe and such.

That means absolutely nothing, however.

The boy that likes the G.I.Joe can still turn out gay, and the boy with the pinks and bed netting just latched on to what he saw. That's a case of nurture. Someone may say, "Well why didn't the G.I.Joe twin like bed netting?"

Cause humans aren't robots.

Last time I checked, genetics don't hard-wire likings for pinks, dolls, and bed netting.:ermm:

One likes what they like.

One gay twin debunks genetics as a cause for gayetty.

[limesqueezer]

Identical twins are genetically .... identical. Well as near it as makes no difference

Actually that's an interesting side issue. How often is one identical twin gay and the other not.

Just because some gay scientists said it soo doesn't mean they are right. To be gay has nothing to do with genetics, its more like what you choose in your head. Like you can't be fat if you don't eat. Such things like: born fat or born gay you only hear from scientists from usa.

[j2k4]

Just because some gay scientists said it soo doesn't mean they are right. To be gay has nothing to do with genetics, its more like what you choose in your head. Like you can't be fat if you don't eat. Such things like: born fat or born gay you only hear from scientists from usa.

Interesting that the same scientists who see a genetic predisposition to homosexuality insist that pedophiles can be rehabilitated.

BTW-It should be noted that this is the same scientific community that insists that global warming is a man-made phenomena.

If Will Rogers was alive he'd surely have concocted an entire show called, There's Money In Them There Theories!

[3RA1N1AC]

Interesting that the same scientists who see a genetic predisposition to homosexuality insist that pedophiles can be rehabilitated.

BTW-It should be noted that this is the same scientific community that insists that global warming is a man-made phenomena.
wait

WHAT

how many scientific communities are there?

[MagicNakor]

Did you seriously compare homosexuality to pedophila?

And I don't recall ever waking up one day and thinking "Hmm, I think today I'll be gay/straight."

:shuriken:

[Snee]

And I don't recall ever waking up one day and thinking "Hmm, I think today I'll be gay/straight."

:shuriken:
One could argue that sexuality might be fluid, and that no one is 100% straight or gay, genetically or hormonally. Sexuality might be more like a spectrum of preferences where each of us prioritize different features in others.

If so, hetero-/and homosexuality might be part choice (conscious or unconcious), and in part dictated by what is more and less accepted/taboo in our own societies.


Having said that....Gay scientists from the USA? :blink:

Last I saw the same sort of ideas about people being homosexual not by choice, have surfaced in every country in the world that isn't an oppressive dictatorship or run by religious nutters.

I wonder where brother lime is from.

[Busyman]

Just because some gay scientists said it soo doesn't mean they are right. To be gay has nothing to do with genetics, its more like what you choose in your head. Like you can't be fat if you don't eat. Such things like: born fat or born gay you only hear from scientists from usa.

There are people genetically predisposed to be being fat.:ermm:

That's a physical characteristic unlike gayetty.

[Barbarossa]

That's a physical characteristic unlike gayetty.

What about the limp wrists and the mincing? :unsure:

[Busyman]

Did you seriously compare homosexuality to pedophila?

And I don't recall ever waking up one day and thinking "Hmm, I think today I'll be gay/straight."

:shuriken:

Pedophiliacks don't choose to like children either.

I doubt they woke up one day and thought, "I think today I'm going to like butt-fucking kids.":ermm:

Where the choice come in is action.

I doubt gays choose it or are born that way.

[MagicNakor]

There's an entire world of difference between molesting children and the relationship between two consenting adults.

I'm drunk and done. There's no point.

:shuriken:

[limesqueezer]

Fat people can lose weight and thats enough of prove that it ain't genetical. You can't be gay from birth if you have women and another month men or you don't know. A child doesn't even know what sex is until he sees it in some magazine or on tv or parents tell him. Even the most popular gays like Freddie Mercury & George Michael had women. What gays are doing is that they say that they don't know what they like to have, or women or men. I don't see any different sexuality if you choose another hole. Lets make bestiality, pedofilia, shoe licking, scat eating and all other fetishes also genetical than.
Who told women or men to dress like they do, parents did, tradition, trends and not gens. Try to give your baby away to some animals and you will see it behave like an animal.

[Busyman]

There's an entire world of difference between molesting children and the relationship between two consenting adults.

I'm drunk and done. There's no point.

:shuriken:

Well my statement wasn't made to bring forth a high-horse response.

My point is that neither is something you born with nor choose.

[Busyman]

Fat people can lose weight and thats enough of prove that it ain't genetical.
You can get your clitoris circumcised, breasts enlarged, and get liposuction. What you said proves nothing.:stars:

[ilw]

Actually that's an interesting side issue. How often is one identical twin gay and the other not.

top answer on google was:



Bailey and Pillard recruited 110 pairs of male twins, half identical, half fraternal. In each case, they knew that one twin was gay. They then sent a questionnaire to the other brother in each pair, to determine his sexual orientation. Among the identical twins, 52 percent of the brothers were gay. Among the fraternals, the number was 22 percent, high enough above the background population rate to suggest that there was something distinctive in those families. The researchers found a very similar pattern with lesbians.

52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were likewise homosexual
22% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
11% of adoptive brothers of homosexual men were likewise homosexual

J.M. Bailey and R.C. Pillard, “A genetic study of male sexual orientation,” Archives of General Psychiatry, vol. 48:1089-1096, December 1991.
Bailey and Pillard (1993): occurrence of homosexuality among sisters
48% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual women were likewise homosexual (lesbian)
16% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
6% of adoptive sisters of homosexual women were likewise homosexual

Bailey, J. M. and D. S. Benishay (1993), “Familial Aggregation of Female Sexual Orientation,” American Journal of Psychiatry 150(2): 272-277.

Other studies found lower correlations, but the same pattern & conclusions, i.e. closest correlation for homosexuality in siblings goes: identical twin then fraternal twin then non twin.


Edit: Snny, identical twins are clones ^_^ just not manmade ones

[Snee]

Are they really clones, by definition, when they've developed simultaneously, rather than had their genetic material harvested from a grown, or at least older individual, albeit that they both initially came from the same cell?

[JPaul]

Are they really clones, by definition, when they've developed simultaneously, rather than had their genetic material harvested from a grown, or at least older individual, albeit that they both initially came from the same cell?

Yup they are really clones, there are a few definitions of what a clone is. One of them fits identical twins.

[JPaul]

top answer on google was:



Bailey and Pillard recruited 110 pairs of male twins, half identical, half fraternal. In each case, they knew that one twin was gay. They then sent a questionnaire to the other brother in each pair, to determine his sexual orientation. Among the identical twins, 52 percent of the brothers were gay. Among the fraternals, the number was 22 percent, high enough above the background population rate to suggest that there was something distinctive in those families. The researchers found a very similar pattern with lesbians.

52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were likewise homosexual
22% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
11% of adoptive brothers of homosexual men were likewise homosexual

J.M. Bailey and R.C. Pillard, “A genetic study of male sexual orientation,” Archives of General Psychiatry, vol. 48:1089-1096, December 1991.
Bailey and Pillard (1993): occurrence of homosexuality among sisters
48% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual women were likewise homosexual (lesbian)
16% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
6% of adoptive sisters of homosexual women were likewise homosexual

Bailey, J. M. and D. S. Benishay (1993), “Familial Aggregation of Female Sexual Orientation,” American Journal of Psychiatry 150(2): 272-277.

Other studies found lower correlations, but the same pattern & conclusions, i.e. closest correlation for homosexuality in siblings goes: identical twin then fraternal twin then non twin.


Edit: Snny, identical twins are clones ^_^ just not manmade ones


Thanks for that. So it would appear that there may be a genetic element in homosexuality, which then may be effected by environment, then personal choice decides whether a person acts out their desires. See that makes sense.

[MagicNakor]

My point is that neither is something you born with nor choose.

If you meant


So it would appear that there may be a genetic element in homosexuality, which then may be effected by environment, then personal choice decides whether a person acts out their desires. See that makes sense.

then I'd agree, though that doesn't excuse your intentional shock statement. But compared with limesqueezer you're a bloody saint.

/still drunk
//also Farking

:shuriken:

[limesqueezer]

This thread is getting filled with illogical statements based on something that someone that is fat or gay said or prooven for his type of people in usa. This thread is ignoring almost everything logical anybody before that said and becoming something what you can call a thread where fat or gay people are trying to justify themself. And besides that its way off-topic.

Is embryonic stem cell research ethical ?

[Busyman]

This thread is getting filled with illogical statements based on something that someone that is fat or gay said or prooven for his type of people in usa. This thread is ignoring almost everything logical anybody before that said and becoming something what you can call a thread where fat or gay people are trying to justify themself. And besides that its way off-topic.

Is embryonic stem cell research ethical ?

You need to read about different body types then. How is it that there are fathers then sons lacking in fat but eat lots of food and don't exercise? You think they both just take in bread and water?

Also stop equating obesity to gayetty. Gayetty involves a person's feelings. Obesity doesn't.

[Busyman]

If you meant


So it would appear that there may be a genetic element in homosexuality, which then may be effected by environment, then personal choice decides whether a person acts out their desires. See that makes sense.

then I'd agree, though that doesn't excuse your intentional shock statement. But compared with limesqueezer you're a bloody saint.

/still drunk
//also Farking

:shuriken:
No I don't believe there is a genetic element in what in particular a person likes sexually.

Is a fetish genetic?

[Mr JP Fugley]

If you meant



then I'd agree, though that doesn't excuse your intentional shock statement. But compared with limesqueezer you're a bloody saint.

/still drunk
//also Farking

:shuriken:
No I don't believe there is a genetic element in what in particular a person likes sexually.

Is a fetish genetic?

How can you extol the virtues of using logic, whilst at the same time totally ignore it yourself. Logic and indeed scientific method dictates that one observes, records and concludes. One does so without pre-conceptions.

Your method would appear to be, decide what I want to believe then totally ignore anything which contradicts it.

There is no excuse for it, only mitigation. Mitigation would be things like a, he's 14 or b, he's quite dense or c, he's a bigot and has no interest in looking at the evidence.

[j2k4]

Interesting that the same scientists who see a genetic predisposition to homosexuality insist that pedophiles can be rehabilitated.

BTW-It should be noted that this is the same scientific community that insists that global warming is a man-made phenomena.
wait

WHAT

how many scientific communities are there?

I speak here of that part of the scientific community which pursues exclusively American funding in order to study nonsensical issues like who (rather than what) is to blame for global warming.

You seriously think there is only one?


Did you seriously compare homosexuality to pedophila?

And I don't recall ever waking up one day and thinking "Hmm, I think today I'll be gay/straight."

:shuriken:

Good Lord. :rolleyes:

I meant that the same group that insists (with the certainty of those who worship exclusively at the altar of science) that homosexuality is a genetic predisposition do not conclude similarly about pedophiles; like this:

THESE are homosexuals, and are to be left to their lifestyle for they cannot change...

However-

THOSE are pedophiles, and can be rehabilitated.

See the difference?

I find this curious, and if no one else does, I wonder why?

[Busyman]

wait

WHAT

how many scientific communities are there?

I speak here of that part of the scientific community which pursues exclusively American funding in order to study nonsensical issues like who (rather than what) is to blame for global warming.

You seriously think there is only one?


Did you seriously compare homosexuality to pedophila?

And I don't recall ever waking up one day and thinking "Hmm, I think today I'll be gay/straight."

:shuriken:

Good Lord. :rolleyes:

I meant that the same group that insists (with the certainty of those who worship exclusively at the altar of science) that homosexuality is a genetic predisposition do not conclude similarly about pedophiles; like this:

THESE are homosexuals, and are to be left to their lifestyle for they cannot change...

However-

THOSE are pedophiles, and can be rehabilitated.

See the difference?

I find this curious, and if no one else does, I wonder why?

Bingo.

Pedophiliacks (by their very nature) have victims, homosexuals (on the surface)don't and that's why there will always be a separation in folk's minds science-wise.

Homosexuals say they can't help being homosexual. Pedophiles say the same. Even when threatened with jail time, etc.

Since everyone seems to boil everyone down to these two choices:

Born with it
Choose it

What say of pedophiles? Are they born pedos, or did they wake up one day and decide to be sexually attracted to kids.

I say it's neither. I'm not talking action. To act on what one feels is a choice.

What you feel is what you feel whether you act on it or not.

[Mr JP Fugley]

Since everyone seems to boil everyone down to these two choices:

Born with it
Choose it


By everyone I assume you mean Busyman.

[limesqueezer]

Soo from now on everything is in genes you try to convince me, all is faith, nothing i choose.

Ok let me tell you what all you ignored:

Fat people can lose weight and thats enough of prove that it ain't genetical - Who is born with 200 kg ? Who stays fat when not eating ? (If you are born blind or you are born with one arm less, thats what ain't your faul)

You can't be gay from birth if you have women and another month men or you don't know. - They can't choose what they want soo how can it be from birth(what means it ain't in genes)

A child doesn't even know what sex is until he sees it in some magazine or on tv or parents tell him. - no he doesn't know, i didn't know what sex is.

Even the most popular gays like Freddie Mercury & George Michael had women. - you ignored this one also

Lets make bestiality, pedofilia, shoe licking, scat eating and all other fetishes also genetical than. - The only thing that is in genes is man+woman=baby
Im not religious but even in bible you have it written, there ain't no adam & adam

Who told women or men to dress like they do, parents did, tradition, trends and not genes. - Why do gays dress like women if they like only men ? Why
some gays dress like a women and some like a man in gay relationship if they don't like women ?

Try to give your baby away to some animals and you will see it behave like an animal. - such people can't talk human, don't dress like homos, don't act like homos and don't eat scat, don't lick shoes and don't like little children but maybe they are little bestiality. Why do you think that is ?

Another question: How can they test who is gay and who isn't, what kind of test is that ?

Another question: What are those genes that tell you are gay, can i see a example ? (Cause if we want to clone humans we need to know that)

[ilw]

Are they really clones, by definition, when they've developed simultaneously, rather than had their genetic material harvested from a grown, or at least older individual, albeit that they both initially came from the same cell?

i think they are clones at least according to the definitions i've seen on dictionary.com. It really just comes down to a difference in technique, since the result is effectively the same

[ilw]

Another question: What are those genes that tell you are gay, can i see a example ? (Cause if we want to clone humans we need to know that)
why do we need to know?

[Snee]

Another question: What are those genes that tell you are gay, can i see a example ? (Cause if we want to clone humans we need to know that)
why do we need to know?

Let's just not feed the monkeys.

[Mr JP Fugley]

why do we need to know?

Let's just not feed the monkeys.

:lol:

Good point, well presented.

[Busyman™]

Soo from now on everything is in genes you try to convince me, all is faith, nothing i choose.

Ok let me tell you what all you ignored:

Fat people can lose weight and thats enough of prove that it ain't genetical - Who is born with 200 kg ? Who stays fat when not eating ? (If you are born blind or you are born with one arm less, thats what ain't your faul)


You are looking at it all wrong and illogical. I didn't say all fat people are genetically fat.

People metabolize foods at different rates even with similar exercise schedules.

There's a skinny fella in my crew. He can eat as much as me and not get bigger.

Saying a fat person can lose weight does not prove your point. I can be born with 11 fingers and then have one removed. Wasn't genetics surely involved in determining the number of fingers I was born with?:ermm:

[Agrajag]

I can be born with 11 fingers and then have one removed. Wasn't genetics surely involved in determining the number of fingers I was born with?:ermm:

Yeah but if you grow an extra finger that's environmental conditioning.

[j2k4]

I can be born with 11 fingers and then have one removed. Wasn't genetics surely involved in determining the number of fingers I was born with?:ermm:

Yeah but if you grow an extra finger that's environmental conditioning.

I just realized you can lose your middle finger by growing an extra one.

Weird, huh? :huh:

[Agrajag]

Yeah but if you grow an extra finger that's environmental conditioning.

I just realized you can lose your middle finger by growing an extra one.

Weird, huh? :huh:

I like to think of it more as gaining an extra middle finger, but I'm a glass half full sort of guy.

[j2k4]

I just realized you can lose your middle finger by growing an extra one.

Weird, huh? :huh:

I like to think of it more as gaining an extra middle finger, but I'm a glass half full sort of guy.

Nah, it's too confusatory.

Instead of "fuck-off" you're making a peace sign, and the glass is overfull by twice, but somehow not spilling.

It defies physical law.

[brenda]

One could argue that sexuality might be fluid, and that no one is 100% straight or gay, genetically or hormonally. Sexuality might be more like a spectrum of preferences where each of us prioritize different features in others.

If so, hetero-/and homosexuality might be part choice (conscious or unconcious), and in part dictated by what is more and less accepted/taboo in our own societies.

Very eloquently put SnnY. People usually look at me like I've just landed from Mars when I express this view but to me it is blindingly obvious that that is the way it is, in fact I'd even go so far as to say that all of our preferences cultural and I'd argue nurture over nature every time.

[j2k4]

One could argue that sexuality might be fluid, and that no one is 100% straight or gay, genetically or hormonally. Sexuality might be more like a spectrum of preferences where each of us prioritize different features in others.

If so, hetero-/and homosexuality might be part choice (conscious or unconcious), and in part dictated by what is more and less accepted/taboo in our own societies.

Very eloquently put SnnY. People usually look at me like I've just landed from Mars when I express this view but to me it is blindingly obvious that that is the way it is, in fact I'd even go so far as to say that all of our preferences cultural and I'd argue nurture over nature every time.

I would agree also.

Nevertheless, I'm sure the scientific community will not be impressed.

[ilw]

err... which bit would they object to, sounds more like the kind of stuff that religious people are not impressed by (e.g. kinsey type stuff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_Reports))

[Busyman™]

err... which bit would they object to, sounds more like the kind of stuff that religious people are not impressed by (e.g. kinsey type stuff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_Reports))

Well the science community would object cos it goes against popular theories.

I remember being alone in the assumption that it is neither genetic nor or a choice before. Now folks are coming around.:whistling

[j2k4]

err... which bit would they object to, sounds more like the kind of stuff that religious people are not impressed by (e.g. kinsey type stuff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_Reports))

It seems to me the scientific types are sold on the idea of genetic predisposition, which the above-stated view is most assuredly not.

[ilw]

Hmm I interpreted it slightly differently, but i can see your point

Snny if you read this, any chance you could say if you believe there is an element of predisposition for sexual preference? (just out of interest)

J2 just to clarify, do you believe that no part of your sexual preference is determined by instincts hard wired into your genes? I mean at the most extreme level, i.e. even a preference for your own species...

Does this belief extend to other creatures, i.e. in non-social creatures there are still clear sexual signs (peacocks fanning their feathers) is none of the arousal or courtship there influenced by genes?

[j2k4]

Hmm I interpreted it slightly differently, but i can see your point

Snny if you read this, any chance you could say if you believe there is an element of predisposition for sexual preference? (just out of interest)

J2 just to clarify, do you believe that no part of your sexual preference is determined by instincts hard wired into your genes? I mean at the most extreme level, i.e. even a preference for your own species...

Does this belief extend to other creatures, i.e. in non-social creatures there are still clear sexual signs (peacocks fanning their feathers) is none of the arousal or courtship there influenced by genes?

First, while I do not deign to lump humans in with the rest of the animal kingdom, it must be said that there is much more in common between the two than many would believe.

While I have heard and seen many incidences of "homosexual" behavior in the wild (and in the "tame" :P ), I have no recollection of ever hearing of any animal-that is to say, apart from humans-exhibiting exclusively "homosexual" tendencies.

Now comes the the gay community saying that they are "hard-wired" as homosexuals, and, sure enough, scientific "evidence" to that effect emerges shortly thereafter.

Can I dispute this theory?

No...I am not a scientist.

While my personal inclination is to denounce such conclusions as bullshit, I have made my peace with the fact of homosexuality, and while I am disposed to judge anyone over anything if the urge strikes me, I'll leave that particular issue to the hereafter.

I consider myself tolerant and I do not proselytize.

In any case, I'll have all the fun I can with the goofy "logic" employed by those who make the claim in one case, but not in the other.

A few innocently asked questions is all if takes, you see. :)

[Snee]

Hmm I interpreted it slightly differently, but i can see your point

Snny if you read this, any chance you could say if you believe there is an element of predisposition for sexual preference? (just out of interest)
Really tired so I'm rambling a little (trying to explain how I see things), but here goes...

I think I originally picked up the notion of fluid sexuality in something Asimov, or maybe Arthur C. Clarke wrote. And it seem to make more and more sense to me the older I get, going by how I actually see people behave :dabs:

In that "spectrum of preferences" I referred to, I assume that such features as are gender-specific would have a place.
But it seems that such features are getting less and less distinct from other, non-gender specific qualities in prospective partners, the more elaborate the organism, as sex becomes less and less about just carrying on ones lineage. If that makes sense.

In insects, procreation is everything, in birds, like your peacocks, I believe it's about the same :unsure: So they would go for those features as are specific to the other gender. But looking at even "higher" life forms, sex is more and more becoming something other than just a means to further ones genes.
In primates it can be a method of establishing rank or tribal solidarity, or just a means for recreation, looking at chimpanzees.

And us humans, well, sex seems to be recreation more than anything, these days.

And while there probably are gender-specific factors we consider, again consciously or subconsciously, they are just part of what we look for. People most certainly prioritize differently when it comes to what they like in a partner.

What determines the "choices" we make, I can't say for certain. Something in our genes may certainly be calling, urging us to seek someone we can create the best possible offspring with. But who is to say that someone cannot possess a whole lot of the qualities wanted, except for that wee problem with them having the wrong set of genitalia?

It seems unlikely, I think, that there would be someone who only seeks qualities that are specific to one gender. And, in my thinking the nature of a creature's sexuality is determined by the function that entity's sexuality fulfills.


I do consider myself heterosexual, btw, but I honestly think that is much more nurture than nature.

[limesqueezer]

Indeed we humans are the only species that is having sex all year long and not thinking about anything else most of the time than to have some pleasure. Most of humans in specific cultures are looking for a partner that has some qualities that tv makes us belive that are needed. When you listening to everything some may say that is sexy you might end up loving clothes; the birth of fetish. I like the way how japanese people think, the type of blood decides most of things there.

[limesqueezer]

But the fact that life is brought is hard to imagine....i mean i would believe that its not just as simple as assembling the bodily parts together......if so you could chop parts of each human and stick em together with super glue but...it is impossible. Also the clone would not be concious and it would lack the ability to think. I think no sorry i know that if cloning is possible then bringing back the dead would mean the same. You could take the cells of the dying person and bring him back. But no tis all impossible.:lol: :lol: :lol:

Ahh.. I understand what you are saying now.

I don't believe the idea is to clone a bunch of body parts and put them together into one person. If that was the case, I would tend to agree with you.

As far as I understand it, there are 2 possibilities.

1- Clone an entire person all in one shot from the cells of one person.

2- Clone parts of a person to graft back on to them or another person or to grow materials in a person to fix parts that are wrecked.

I suppose another idea is to clone a whole persons body and put the original persons brain into it, but I think that will be a ways away:D


What they doing isn't really cloning, they are just injecting dna into core of cell. Not even twins are the same, but they are in the same matrix and that makes them similar when they get born, later on they go their way. While if you wanted to make a fotocopy of a human, that human wouldn't be the same person. It is only possible if he gets born again but than he dies and his dna is used to make a copy of him and that clone doesn't know he exsisted before, it is without meaning. Nobody can clone a grown human adult with his knowledge in his brain, cause if they wanted to do that they need to know first how cells split themself and than they would need to know how brain works. And later on you could ask yourself how to clone your memory and if you would be the same with no memories of anything you did before. Cause cloning isn't like transfering data to another disk. Your brain gets old and memories of your brain will never be possible to clone, you can have all replaced, but you will die because of your brain gets old. Cloning doesn't exsist and will never fully exsist, the only thing that exsist is injecting skin into cells and that what we call cloning these days. Nobody cloned anything that has a shape of grown human.

[Barbarossa]

Ahh.. I understand what you are saying now.

I don't believe the idea is to clone a bunch of body parts and put them together into one person. If that was the case, I would tend to agree with you.

As far as I understand it, there are 2 possibilities.

1- Clone an entire person all in one shot from the cells of one person.

2- Clone parts of a person to graft back on to them or another person or to grow materials in a person to fix parts that are wrecked.

I suppose another idea is to clone a whole persons body and put the original persons brain into it, but I think that will be a ways away:D


What they doing isn't really cloning, they are just injecting dna into core of cell. Not even twins are the same, but they are in the same matrix and that makes them similar when they get born, later on they go their way. While if you wanted to make a fotocopy of a human, that human wouldn't be the same person. It is only possible if he gets born again but than he dies and his dna is used to make a copy of him and that clone doesn't know he exsisted before, it is without meaning. Nobody can clone a grown human adult with his knowledge in his brain, cause if they wanted to do that they need to know first how cells split themself and than they would need to know how brain works. And later on you could ask yourself how to clone your memory and if you would be the same with no memories of anything you did before. Cause cloning isn't like transfering data to another disk. Your brain gets old and memories of your brain will never be possible to clone, you can have all replaced, but you will die because of your brain gets old. Cloning doesn't exsist and will never fully exsist, the only thing that exsist is injecting skin into cells and that what we call cloning these days. Nobody cloned anything that has a shape of grown human.

I'll tell you what cloning is shall I, because you seem to be failing to grasp the simple concept.

Cloning, by definition, is the creation of a genetically identical organism to another. How you do it, is irrelevent.

Identical twins are clones, because genetically, they have the same DNA.

You're talking about a special type of cloning which is popular in science-fiction, where a full-grown human is created almost instantaneously from the cells of another. Using current technologies, this is well beyond our capabilities, but this may not always be the case.

You're also talking about the transference of intelligence from one brain to another. Again, current knowledge of how the brain works means that this is not possible, but with a bit of effort, starting off with some very simple cases, I can see this happening in the future also.

For some brains this could be easier than others. ;)

[limesqueezer]

I have never seen a twin that dressed the same like his twin, they don't even weight the same, they are similar, they are the same maybe only while in same egg in same mother. For example when you clone and take another mother its different enviorement in mother, it developes different altrough with same dna of someone that died, soo that you understand. ;)
We know that you can inject dna into cell but we don't know how the process work, we don't know absolutly nothing about how brain works, they arn't even sure where is the brain for speach if that even exsist. What scientists are doing now is not grown human cloning, don't mix that with embyonic stem cell research.

[Busyman]

I have never seen a twin that dressed the same like his twin, they don't even weight the same, they are similar, they are the same maybe only while in same egg in same mother. For example when you clone and take another mother its different enviorement in mother, it developes different altrough with same dna of someone that died, soo that you understand. ;)
We know that you can inject dna into cell but we don't know how the process work, we don't know absolutly nothing about how brain works, they arn't even sure where is the brain for speach if that even exsist. What scientists are doing now is not grown human cloning, don't mix that with embyonic stem cell research.

Twins are not even exactly the same in the womb.:ermm:

[limesqueezer]

Identical twins arn't really identical, like clones arn't machines, some may think its like in movies, when they all act and behave the same, for now its just experimenting with cells that they don't even understand fully. Some things will forever be Sci-fi and some will change a bit but not like in games. It will never be like printing a full-grown human like a papper soo you could live forever.
I would like to see my memories stored on disk, soo i could use them for a new body. :D :D

[Barbarossa]

I would like to see my memories stored on disk, soo i could use them for a new body. :D :D

http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/1698/floppydiskak0.jpg

This should do the job for you, with room to spare :smilie4:

[limesqueezer]

http://euroross.blogspot.com/Fat%20and%20Smoking.jpg
Cloning Barbarossa style: you take 1 large Barbarossa and make 2 big Barbarossas, 2 identical idiots.

But Barbarossa doesn't even need to store his knowledge with one of those things: http://www.sip.be/hardware/floppy-schijf-5-inch-kl.jpg
Barbarossa is a Serpent Priest, he was born with his wisdom, soo he doesn't have anything to loose, he has as much knowledge as when born (all in genes).





Cloning, by definition, is the creation of a genetically identical organism to another. How you do it, is irrelevent.

Long live Barbarossa logic, wisdom right out of games and lounge, withouth explanation, it is irrelevent to ask that.

[tracydani3]

When I refered to cloning an entire person, I was not speaking of the near instant process on movies. I was speaking of growing it from day one throgh however many years needed to reach the age of the physical body being cloned.

I also am not refering to getting an identical person with respects to the brain and memories. I was saying you would clone the person (say from birth at the same or near the same time the original is born) and then if the original body is comprmised, transfering the hopefuly working brain into the other body.

Not realy an effective way to do things, but that is the type of cloning I was refering to.

[Busyman™]

http://euroross.blogspot.com/Fat%20and%20Smoking.jpg
Cloning Barbarossa style: you take 1 large Barbarossa and make 2 big Barbarossas, 2 identical idiots.

But Barbarossa doesn't even need to store his knowledge with one of those things: http://www.sip.be/hardware/floppy-schijf-5-inch-kl.jpg
Barbarossa is a Serpent Priest, he was born with his wisdom, soo he doesn't have anything to loose, he has as much knowledge as when born (all in genes).





Cloning, by definition, is the creation of a genetically identical organism to another. How you do it, is irrelevent.

Long live Barbarossa logic, wisdom right out of games and lounge, withouth explanation, it is irrelevent to ask that.

If you don't stop right now, I'm going to come over and kick Barbarossa's dick outta your mouth.

[MagicNakor]

Keep on topic guys, or I'm going to be forced to modulate.

:shuriken:

[Barbarossa]

Keep on topic guys, or I'm going to be forced to modulate.

:shuriken:

OK, but I got him to post in a format other than a word-brick, I'm pretty happy with that :dry:

[j2k4]

http://euroross.blogspot.com/Fat%20and%20Smoking.jpg


That's not our Barbie, that's Sir Elton at Woodstock!

[Agrajag]

FFS are you people as idiotic as you try to appear. Identical twins are identical. They are made from the one fertilized egg, which splits in two.

As opposed to twins resulting from two different eggs being fertilized. They are effectively just brothers, or sisters, or brother / sister who develop at the same time, in the same womb.

Identical twins may not look exactly the same but they have exactly the same DNA. If you did a DNA test you would not be able to differentiate them, however if you did a fingerprint test you would.

They share DNA, they are clones.

[Busyman™]

Identical twins arn't really identical, like clones arn't machines, some may think its like in movies, when they all act and behave the same, for now its just experimenting with cells that they don't even understand fully. Some things will forever be Sci-fi and some will change a bit but not like in games. It will never be like printing a full-grown human like a papper soo you could live forever.
I would like to see my memories stored on disk, soo i could use them for a new body. :D :D

I missed this. You have a weird analogy there but to be technical, identical twins are not really identical (as in being exactly alike). They just have identical DNA. However even in the womb there are factors which help differentiate them. Nutrition is one of them.

The differences between identical twins widens as they get older. Identical twin puppies will most likely have a slightly different placement of spots of color on their fur, for example.

[Barbarossa]

FFS are you people as idiotic as you try to appear. Identical twins are identical. They are made from the one fertilized egg, which splits in two.

As opposed to twins resulting from two different eggs being fertilized. They are effectively just brothers, or sisters, or brother / sister who develop at the same time, in the same womb.

Identical twins may not look exactly the same but they have exactly the same DNA. If you did a DNA test you would not be able to differentiate them, however if you did a fingerprint test you would.

They share DNA, they are clones.

That's what I said :snooty: