first cloned human beings
- Started
- Last post
- 53 Responses
- Mimio0
The genetic process is a mutable thing, humans have been influencing it for centuries, our reproductive choices our food our pets etc. Nature is a system of causality and random mututation. Over the next few years there is going to be shift in the creationist/evolutionist discourse via the mapping of the human genome. So the "everything according to it's kind" view of creationism will become absolutely moot.
- lowimpakt0
for me - there isnt much point getting bogged down in the theological arguements of what is considered life. What concerns me is the precedents set by this type of announcement. If the ethical debate becomes weakened it may be overcome by statutory precedents set by the existence of the research. Aside from the theology and ethics there are too many question of necessity and control. Control of the research may be more important than the necessity arguement.
- gabriel_pc0
Read this:
http://search.barnesandnoble.com…
Has a lot of interesting ideas on where evolution is heading.
- lowimpakt0
im not really interested in futurist predictions. I would be concerned due to the developments in gene-patenting or 'bio-piracy'. Would it not be plausable that the mapping of the genome would lead to a patentable claim by the company who completes the work.
a few news stories on bio-piracy:
- Mimio0
Research has been commodified for over a century. This is no different, it's as preposterous as trying to patent a cow if it goes past raw research data.
- abizzyman0
religion will always be a part of this debate - I don't think there's anyway around it.
I'm trying to keep faith aside here and discuss when LIFE exists. A sperm is alive... as is the egg cell too... but alone they go no further.
Put them together and it's amazing what happens.
I don't know understand how evolutionists can see past the fact that men and women can't create life without each other. There's no synthetic sperm or egg in existance. We can harvest them - but you need the human donor.
The majority of men and women are attracted to each other - then come together to not only get involved in probably the most pleasureable experience a human can go through (physically speaking about sex here)... but to be able to create another human.
I just think there's a bit of design and order there... stuff we shouldn't really be screwing around with.
- Mimio0
Evolutionists are biologists, zoologists, anthropologists, chemists, geneticists, etc. I doubt they are often mistaken about the mechanics of life. Evolution illustrates that lack of intent or design in the visceral world with fact and observation.
- abizzyman0
biologists, zoologists, anthropologists, chemists, geneticists prove each other right and WRONG everyday.
there are constant changes in 'understanding' everyday. What once was theory is soon considered fact... then is completely proved wrong in a year or two.
this type of research is YEARS from creating something useful... and EVERYTHING scientists talk about is speculation -- 'in years to come, we could be growing actual organs' etc etc... COULD BE. For all we know - nothing could come out of this.
I admit my curiousity to see what 'could' happen... but also realize that we'd be dabbling in something FAR beyond our comprehension.
I think it should be left alone - and prosthetic or synthetic studies she increase.
Killing life is selfish and unacceptable - no matter which way you twist it.
Life that wishes to die for others is completely acceptable and unselfish.
We shouldn't have the right to decide who lives or dies for the good of others - whether inside or outside the womb.
btw - good conversation - i appreciate the respect in this argument... it could get alot more heated and angry (name-calling to an unecessary extent)... thanks for maintaining a quality level of dignity.
- ribit0
"A sperm is alive... as is the egg cell too... but alone they go no further."
But thats exactly what's different in this case. There is no sperm involved here, and only part of an egg (the 'non-DNA' part), and yet it IS going further... at least far enough to enable a specific medical use.
- abizzyman0
but they cloned a human in this case... at least that what the news reports and written articles are saying...
... so, I'm confused.
- ribit0
Yes, they cloned a human. But there was no sperm or egg nucleus involved. Just the donor cells put into a 'de-nucleusised' egg.
I'm totally unsure of the moral arguments here... I just think it's important to really understand what exactly is being done before getting into the more difficult arguments about whether it should be done...
- ribit0
And in fact 'cloned a human' doesnt really describe it properly.
Yes, they cloned from a human. But they aren't trying to create a human being.
Did they create a human being? Some would say no, some say yes, or a 'potential' human being... etc..
- abizzyman0
so much grey area.