Scientists create animals that are part-human

Not to mention these creatures that are born are still considered natural, they are in no way shape or form a computer or something that is not biological, therefore considered natural. If experimenting with animals was not part of our human evolution/or the universe for that matter, then why are we doing it regardless of your opinion? DNA is a code, and there are people out there that understand that code, and put it into action by creating new scientific breakthroughs, no big deal. What is a big deal is religious groups being against this, which in a logical world would not be a big deal, but in a world where emotions run wild over intelligence, groups that pay zero taxes are telling the world that they are wrong, meanwhile robbing the zombies that feed them via donations.

Great times indeed, im just glad I live in a time with internet and the ability to reach people that are not completely insane otherwise I'd be stuck around the idiots in my town, and that would suck

Originally posted by NewEmpire816

Originally posted by JohnnyTHSeed
reply to post by NewEmpire816

 

At one point you were barely anything more than some stem cells. Luckily they didn't put you in a mouse and kill you for behavior that, give the circumstances, would be considered perfectly natural.

Go go gadget science!

And whats natural about a rat acting human???? Nothing!

I said that "give(n) the circumstances.." it is natural. These scientists are creating a mouse with the potential to exhibit human behaviors, then killing them for exhibiting those behaviors.

Given the circumstance of having human brain cells, it would be "natural" that they exhibit human behaviors.

One can argue that it is natural for humans to be doing these experiments due to human curiosity, making everything about this natural. I would agree with that, it is natural for humans to do things like this, just as it is natural for some to disagree with the morality of it.

So crazy, so nasty and yet being tolerated ! I can't stand this kind of research being approved and still happening. I know some will argue about the positive potential of this thing but dam, what about genetic manipulation laws?

I have a bad feeling playing too much woth genetic will have a bad outcome

reply to post by NewEmpire816


Advances in science AND technology as applied science, encompass a lot of things which include food. I.e. chemical preservatives, genetically modified crops, chemical pesticides, pharmaceuticals, vaccines. Let's not forget the science of energy and all it's contributions, tainted water, tainted air, tainted soil. We breath, bathe in, eat, and inject our scientific advancements, and then try to come up with more "advancements" to try and remediate the damage those "advancements" cause

Originally posted by kalamatas
We claim these are advances in science that somehow help the human race. Most of the "advances" we have made are EXACTLY what make people sick. Most diseases can be linked to toxicity and diet, and if our genes are messed up well diet and toxicity can do that as well. It''s one thing to let an animal be happy grazing on pasture then swiftly kill it for food, but to augment it's natural God given state to live a life experiencing unknown horrors simply to figure out how to prolong our pathetic lives because we couldn't take care of ourselves to begin with is beyond selfish and beyond sick.

Advances in science my rear. And what's to say that somehow these critters might not end up in the food chain by "accident" and then we're essentially eating human dna. Nobody's that careful, and if people are twisted enough to do this crap to begin with to animals, I doubt they have much empathy for the human race as well.

edit on 24-3-2011 by kalamatas because: typo

Answer this:

Have you ever taken a Tylenol? Advil? Aspirin? Had an operation? Maybe been immunized?

If you answer "yes" to any one of those, you are a hypocrite.

reply to post by NewEmpire816

what does toxcity and a persons personal diet have to do with Science and experiments making us sick??? it just sounds like someone brings disease and other things upon themselves by their diet and not actually our scientific advancments

Because the crazy Frankenstein scientists are effing up all the crops with god only knows what toxins (which we will all soon be forced to eat because everything will be GM), which then probably cause illness, disease and death in consumers (including you and I), which then lead to more crazy scientists performing horrific experiments on live animals, to attempt to cure the illness and disease which the crazy scientists probably caused in the first place.

It's the detestable cruelty to living animals I object to, the living victims of their experiments - worse than any horror movie

I'm sure there'll be a few video's on the internet of actual experiments taking place. Don't watch just the stem cell work, watch the other stuff they do to live animals. Be warned though that it won't be a pretty sight, not by a long shot, but you will know why some of us are so against it.

I would give anything to erase the memory of what I saw. The pitiful cries of the animals devastated me. And I have never got over it

reply to post by nightbringr


Tylenol and aspirin have been used by humans in their natural form for hundreds if not thousands of years. No animal research was needed for that.

Immunization research caused the AIDS epidemic.

Originally posted by nightbringr


Answer this:

Have you ever taken a Tylenol? Advil? Aspirin? Had an operation? Maybe been immunized?

If you answer "yes" to any one of those, you are a hypocrite.

Really? how is taking advil or tylenol, or even a surgical procedure in anyway the same as genetic modification? When u take an advil your stomach might bleed. When scientist toy with genes they are fumbling in the dark. Think genetic mods are cool? think about this: one technique to test for positive uptake of an inserted gene is to place an antibiotic marker in the dna. this marker produces an enzyme that protects the cell from an antibiotic. then they hit the cells with the antibiotic and if it survives then the genes took hold. whats wrong with that? thoes genes don't stay there. the bacteria in your gut are pretty good at grabbing DNA from food and using it. my point is we are introducing artificial gene combinations into nature, without a complete understanding of the repercussions. we 'think' they should stay where we put them and do what we 'want' but we really have no way of telling cause its all new ground. if i take an advil and my stomach bleeds thats just me. indroduction of artifical genes wil effect EVERYBODY, good or bad, its hardly the same.

heres a link with an abstract about the gene transfer www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

heres another:www.i-sis.org.uk...

reply to post by nightbringr


No, I'm not a hypocrite, it's a matter of responsibility. I never said that science had no place, it's in which it is used to create conveniences, and perceived advancements without the regard to any negative implication. Aspirin is a derivative of white willow bark. Does it need coloring, flow agents, and gmo corn starch to be administered? ALso is it being taken in excess? I don't believe in vaccines, as they are proven not to create immunity, and the adverse effects are highly damaging. Natural immunity is true immunity. Death rates and complications for vaccine related diseases have never been so high as to necessitate vaccines (which cause more damage than the disease). It is also shown that complications arise in unsanitary environments, and malnourished or previously unhealthy individual. True advancement is when the benefit far outweighs any complications. pain relieving drugs are an advancement when used responsibly and without unnecessary fillers. No one knows exactly how or if vaccines work, as it is admitted that the complexity of the immune system is not fully understood. Injecting dead viruses foreign, dna, toxic chemicals and metal to induce an antibody response, that does not truly confer immunity, and has devastating consequences of neurological disorders, autoimmune disorders and so on in certain individuals, is not advancement.

Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Every aspect of implications to the natural structures of life must be considered before "advancements" take place.

Originally posted by JohnnyTHSeed
reply to post by nightbringr

 

Immunization research caused the AIDS epidemic.

Good point. even better is to think about what were trying to do with AIDS. essentially were trying to eradicate a collection of genes in nature. and its not easy. to me it illustrates the danger and possible irreversibility of toying with things we don't have a firm grasp on.

If u have your son or someone of your family who is with some terminal disease, u probably will take whatever solution in order to save their life, I would'nt mind if the organs come from an animal. as long as it can help my family, think about how many families are in such situation, with childrens, I personally think that a human life is a little more valuable than a mouse or a sheep.

Originally posted by JohnnyTHSeed
reply to post by nightbringr

 

Tylenol and aspirin have been used by humans in their natural form for hundreds if not thousands of years. No animal research was needed for that.

Immunization research caused the AIDS epidemic.

Please post me the information proving that claim.

I dont get immunized either. Dont believe in it. I believe our body can fend off many of these things, and when it does, we are stronger for it. However to make blanket statements that all medical R+D using animals has only caused misery and never good is absurd.

And the day you refuse medical treatment when a child of yours is dying from a disease cured through animal testing R+D is the day i put some stock into your statements.

Also saying if its natural its better makes no sense in the real world. Many, many poisons are natural.

Originally posted by nightbringr

Originally posted by JohnnyTHSeed
reply to post by nightbringr

 

Tylenol and aspirin have been used by humans in their natural form for hundreds if not thousands of years. No animal research was needed for that.

Immunization research caused the AIDS epidemic.

Please post me the information proving that claim.

And the day you refuse medical treatment when a child of yours is dying from a disease cured through animal testing R+D is the day i put some stock into your statements.

My girlfriend's family on her mother's side is from Hungary. Her grandparents are very "old world" people. Her mother has extreme crohn's disease, which began as ulcerative colitis. She could have had surgery and got the treatment to (probably) fix her issue. She never got the treatment, because her parents (my girlfriends grandparents) believed that surgery and modern medicine were evil.

This may be a very different situation, but it is similar in the way that someone didn't get treatment because the process wasn't understood, which invoked fear. Until we fully understand the implications of this research (i.e. Does this process create human level thoughts or feelings? etc.), the fear will be present.

Originally posted by nightbringr

Originally posted by JohnnyTHSeed
reply to post by nightbringr

 

Tylenol and aspirin have been used by humans in their natural form for hundreds if not thousands of years. No animal research was needed for that.

Immunization research caused the AIDS epidemic.

Please post me the information proving that claim.

heres some:www.hivandhepatitis.com...

from the link:

"[T]he relatively sudden appearance and explosive spread of HIV throughout Africa and around the world beginning in the 1950s have never been adequately explained," the study authors noted as background. Wars, reuse of needles and other medical equipment in Africa during the 1950s and 1960s, and contaminated polio vaccine have all been suggested as possible explanations, but have been either disproved or do not adequately explain the patterns of the epidemic. The investigators theorized that the emergence and spread of HIV might be somehow related to the eradication of smallpox and the subsequent cessation of widespread Vaccinia immunization around the same time. Smallpox vaccination was discontinued between the 1950s and 1970s as the disease was eradicated (today only researchers and medical personnel at risk of exposure receive the vaccine).

Originally posted by ChaosComplex

Originally posted by nightbringr

Originally posted by JohnnyTHSeed
reply to post by nightbringr

 

Tylenol and aspirin have been used by humans in their natural form for hundreds if not thousands of years. No animal research was needed for that.

Immunization research caused the AIDS epidemic.

Please post me the information proving that claim.

And the day you refuse medical treatment when a child of yours is dying from a disease cured through animal testing R+D is the day i put some stock into your statements.

My girlfriend's family on her mother's side is from Hungary. Her grandparents are very "old world" people. Her mother has extreme crohn's disease, which began as ulcerative colitis. She could have had surgery and got the treatment to (probably) fix her issue. She never got the treatment, because her parents (my girlfriends grandparents) believed that surgery and modern medicine were evil.

This may be a very different situation, but it is similar in the way that someone didn't get treatment because the process wasn't understood, which invoked fear. Until we fully understand the implications of this research (i.e. Does this process create human level thoughts or feelings? etc.), the fear will be present.

Very well said and i agree completely.

Dont get me wrong, this does alarm me to some extent, but i am a firm believer that we as people need to move forward or we will all perish.

I have had family members who have needed medical attention over the last 10 or so years, and in one case at least i know i might very well have lost someone close to me if these advances were not made.

Originally posted by BecauseiSaidso

Originally posted by nightbringr

Originally posted by JohnnyTHSeed
reply to post by nightbringr

 

Tylenol and aspirin have been used by humans in their natural form for hundreds if not thousands of years. No animal research was needed for that.

Immunization research caused the AIDS epidemic.

Please post me the information proving that claim.

heres some:www.hivandhepatitis.com...

from the link:

"[T]he relatively sudden appearance and explosive spread of HIV throughout Africa and around the world beginning in the 1950s have never been adequately explained," the study authors noted as background. Wars, reuse of needles and other medical equipment in Africa during the 1950s and 1960s, and contaminated polio vaccine have all been suggested as possible explanations, but have been either disproved or do not adequately explain the patterns of the epidemic. The investigators theorized that the emergence and spread of HIV might be somehow related to the eradication of smallpox and the subsequent cessation of widespread Vaccinia immunization around the same time. Smallpox vaccination was discontinued between the 1950s and 1970s as the disease was eradicated (today only researchers and medical personnel at risk of exposure receive the vaccine).

I see absolutely no proof in that article. Even the author is stating in plain english this is all speculation.

Not only that, this actually shows the opposite of what you are saying. This line:

[q]The investigators theorized that the emergence and spread of HIV might be somehow related to the eradication of smallpox and the subsequent cessation of widespread Vaccinia immunization around the same time. [/q]

Shows that the CESSATION of the immunization might have cause this. How this would be i have no idea.

Next source please?

reply to post by nightbringr

I would assume then if one of your children needed a life saving procedure that was gleaned through this type of R and D, you would refuse it due to your ethical concerns?

I wouldn't refuse it based on my ethical concerns, rather I would because it would mean abusing one creature, so another (of equal value) would live a while longer.
I cannot condone suffering and abuse, simply to prolong a life that will ultimately die anyway. We all die, so why be so afraid of it, other than due to social/religious conditioning?

Human or not - we are all animals and, having lived in the wilderness where I genuinely bonded with wild creatures, my answer can only be "Absolutely".
All life is sacred, not just the ones directly involved in our own lives.
Only human ego (or family bonding, for your example) makes us mistake our lives as more important that any other and the simple fact of the matter is we are not. Just look at how well the world did before humans appeared - it has all gone downhill from there, so how can we be more important than those lives that helped keep this planet pure and ecologically sound for millennia?

Thank You. That was a valid question and the point you were making is not lost on me.

reply to post by nightbringr

If you answer "yes" to any one of those, you are a hypocrite.

Assuming you aren't a user of illicit drugs and are against their use:
Say I were to serve you a drink that had been spiked - would you be a hypocrite for drinking it, even though you had been unaware of the illegal drug in there?

Of course not, therefore your argument only stands if those taking your examples knew what may have been done to get them.

Originally posted by OptimisticPessimist
reply to post by nightbringr

 

I would assume then if one of your children needed a life saving procedure that was gleaned through this type of R and D, you would refuse it due to your ethical concerns?

I wouldn't refuse it based on my ethical concerns, rather I would because it would mean abusing one creature, so another (of equal value) would live a while longer.
I cannot condone suffering and abuse, simply to prolong a life that will ultimately die anyway. We all die, so why be so afraid of it, other than due to social/religious conditioning?

Human or not - we are all animals and, having lived in the wilderness where I genuinely bonded with wild creatures, my answer can only be "Absolutely".
All life is sacred, not just the ones directly involved in our own lives.
Only human ego (or family bonding, for your example) makes us mistake our lives as more important that any other and the simple fact of the matter is we are not. Just look at how well the world did before humans appeared - it has all gone downhill from there, so how can we be more important than those lives that helped keep this planet pure and ecologically sound for millennia?

Thank You. That was a valid question and the point you were making is not lost on me.

Fair enough. I would not have the strength to look into my dieing daughters eyes and tell her that she will die because Daddy is too afraid to hurt an animal to save her.

Awesome I love science but why is he growing human brian cells in a baby sheep unless he wants the sheep to be part human