Human Cloning?

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 51
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    You're a true believer.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 22 of 51
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    I didn't think that Scott was a prick on this one. In fact I agree entirely with him.



    Any scientifical process has to respect the ethic. This is the basis of medecine research in every democratic countrie. The ethic vary from place to place, but everywhere the question of ethic is discussed.



    Now, I enter in the Mod mode, and I am quite disapointed by the way this thread is evolving. It seems that some people are even willing to politicise every thread in AO. This is really sad, because politicise a sujbect is the best way to destroy any serious discussion.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 23 of 51
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Powerdoc

    I didn't think that Scott was a prick on this one. In fact I agree entirely with him.



    Any scientifical process has to respect the ethic. This is the basis of medecine research in every democratic countrie. The ethic vary from place to place, but everywhere the question of ethic is discussed.



    Now, I enter in the Mod mode, and I am quite disapointed by the way this thread is evolving. It seems that some people are even willing to politicise every thread in AO. This is really sad, because politicise a sujbect is the best way to destroy any serious discussion.




    What Scott's petite-brained example failed to call attention to was the fact that there are ways of getting volunteers for medical research, meaning the research will still occur without resorting to stealing people's livers on the street. A more appropriate example would be to ban medical research that used needles, which is absurd.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 24 of 51
    benzenebenzene Posts: 338member
    Marc, I appreciate your statements. I'm always glad to see people holding the scientific community's feet to the fire. It's such a large entity no single person has a good grasp of all the concepts currently in play.



    As for RNA "evolution", what they're basically doing is looking at all the examples of self-splicing RNAs in nature, and literally making random combinations of the various chunks. Some general engineering processes might play a part as well. It's not really true evolution.



    I try not to be too political, I just want people to know some of the actual facts behind all of this seeming wizardry that science is doing these days. It's too bad people can't get past their immaturity and just have logical discussions....sigh...



    --edit--

    btw, I know I'm going to get flamed for this, but since scientists didn't exist when the universe started, we will never be able to prove that either evolution was responsible, or that it was created. As such, technically either is a dogma.



    From dictionary.com:

    Quote:

    2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true.



    Again, if anyone wants to discuss evolution as a dogma (note I said discuss, not flame), I'd be more than willing to.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 25 of 51
    marcukmarcuk Posts: 4,442member
    Deleted for the sake of a good topic
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 26 of 51
    marcukmarcuk Posts: 4,442member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by benzene



    1) As for RNA "evolution", what they're basically doing is looking at all the examples of self-splicing RNAs in nature, and literally making random combinations of the various chunks. Some general engineering processes might play a part as well. It's not really true evolution.



    --edit--

    2) btw, I know I'm going to get flamed for this, but since scientists didn't exist when the universe started, we will never be able to prove that either evolution was responsible, or that it was created. As such, technically either is a dogma.





    1) Which is why research into stem-cells is important. It could offer the ability to understand the process instead of just chucking things together and hoping. The ability to create our own DNA with an understanding of what each codon does, and to be able to design our own proteins.



    2) I will politely say that is a foolish comment. By that reasoning, there is no science in any field. Evolution is the frequency of alelles over time - after it started. It has been observed in our lifetime. Abiogenesis is the hypothesis of how it started off. We'll never empirically prove Abiogenesis unless we get time machines, but we can still theoretisize its mechanisms and produce a theory that fits the evidence and as it is scientific, could be falsified by evidence. This is where stem-cell research is relavent. Creationists are plain stupid, because they're putting all their energy into falsifying the wrong theory and a proven fact.



    Evolution is just as much a fact as the theory of Gravity. Like all theories it is subject to be proven wrong, but the fact that evolution occurs is not up for debate.



    I see lately that the theory of Gravity might be slightly wrong, do we therefore rule out the fact that Gravity occurs? Do we say Gravity is technically a dogma because there were no Scientists at planck's time?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 27 of 51
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by hardeeharhar

    What Scott's petite-brained example failed to call attention to was the fact that there are ways of getting volunteers for medical research, meaning the research will still occur without resorting to stealing people's livers on the street. A more appropriate example would be to ban medical research that used needles, which is absurd.



    It's not because you are able to find volunteers for medical research, that this research is legitimate (read ethic).

    For example, there is people ready to seel their kidney against money. They are ok and volunteer : does it means that it's ethic to do it ? (this is not an example of research, but I just want to point it out, that being a volunteer is not everything).

    Any medical research practiced on a patient should have the permission of the patient. But this research have to be approved by an ethic commitee.



    I am sorry to say that, but as a doctor I can certify you that you canno't avoid ethic when you deal with medical research.

    Scott made a demonstration by the absurd (sorry for this bad translation) : he cite a ridiculous example by purpose, in order to demonstrate, that ethic is mandatory.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 28 of 51
    marcukmarcuk Posts: 4,442member
    Deleted for the sake of a good topic
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 29 of 51
    randycat99randycat99 Posts: 1,919member
    No, you are simply bringing the poorest practices from PO to AO. It is not a joke, and your remarks are not taken in jest. You should have been moderated by now, but it appears you are enjoying a stint of leniency.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 30 of 51
    marcukmarcuk Posts: 4,442member
    Deleted for the sake of a good topic
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 31 of 51
    randycat99randycat99 Posts: 1,919member
    That's a ridiculous justification. Essentially, you are in advocation that only certain individuals should be subject to the rules based on the popularity of the viewpoints. If that is truly the majority thinking here, then AI has truly fallen to pathetic levels of integrity. Regardless of whether Scotts remarks are just disagreeable or flat-out, dead wrong, the impact to these boards is negligible compared to that which comes from a policy where general rules only apply to those holding minority opinions and the partial enforcement of said rules extends all the way to the moderatorship. I imagine you feel no need to bow your head in shame to suggest such a scenario. This is pathetic, indeed.



    If not for that, you should at least be given a warning to desist in flat-out corrupting the words used in a quote block when you use a quote block. That behavior is just plainly abhorrent wrt forum etiquette, regardless if you think you represent the voice of 95% of the membership here. You have become worse than the very persons you eschew.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 32 of 51
    benzenebenzene Posts: 338member
    Quote:

    1) Which is why research into stem-cells is important. It could offer the ability to understand the process instead of just chucking things together and hoping. The ability to create our own DNA with an understanding of what each codon does, and to be able to design our own proteins.



    Eh, stem cells aren't very good models for understanding much more than the regulation of genome transcription / translation. I don't know what you're referring to by the last sentence, DNA serves both as a structual encoding method (via translation into proteins) and a regulatory purpose (i.e. it's frequency of transcription). The translation mechanism and the subsequent proteins is well understood. Stem cells are valued for their insight into regulation.



    Quote:

    2) I will politely say that is a foolish comment. By that reasoning, there is no science in any field. Evolution is the frequency of alelles over time - after it started.



    First, science is very well suited for the here and now. Scientists are experts at building models. Atoms, electrons, quarks, mesons, and leptons are all model systems for crying out loud. Any serious physicist will say as much. To build a good model, you need to see if it correctly predicts what will happen in real life. Origin evolution (and by that I mean chemical evolution) cannot do that, and thus, is a poor application of science.

    I think I know what you're trying to say. Look, I'm not debating evolution. All forms of life have mechanisms by which their genetic material is shuffled/added to/deleted. Some of these changes will be postive, hence evolution. What I was discussing was origins. That is beyond the scope of science, because the scientific method dictates that we must test our hypotheses. There are lots of developmental biology journal articles out there, but only a paltry few that attempt to explain orgin chemistry.

    And please clarify your definition of evolution, my syntax parser crashed on that sentence.



    Quote:

    Creationists are plain stupid, because they're putting all their energy into falsifying the wrong theory and a proven fact.



    I take great offense at that. We're not trying to say evolution doesn't happen in some instances, only that you can't use the theory of evolution into explaning how life began. To evolve, you have to have a system in place to do so. Before life existed, no such luck. If you want to discuss the possbilites / parameters necessary for chemical evolution, I'd be more than happy to.



    Evolution is like stem cells, good for some things, crap for other things.

    p.s. Max Planck was a scientist. Gravity is something we can measure and test hypotheses against. The beginning of time: No such luck.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 33 of 51
    Quote:

    Originally posted by MarcUK

    Deleted for the sake of a good topic



    You're turning into Anna Mated again. Could we try and pull our collective fingers out and practise being dispassionate for a bit?



    I'm not right-wing or the least bit religious.



    I'm not voting because I don't know enough to make a sufficiently educated choice. But I have concerns, including:



    - I'm bothered by possible gaps in our knowledge and the unforeseeable consequences of those gaps that may arise once the genie is out of the bottle



    - despite all our knowledge, we seem to be pretty good at making a hash of things and I'm not sure we should be fooling with this stuff until we've become a little more responsible



    - I'm concerned about how this science might be exploited especially by corporations and to a lesser degree governments. Medical treatment is already administered unequally and value judgments are routinely applied to medical research. IIRC, there was talk a while back of "copyrighting" genes. Don't know if that came about but even considering it doesn't augur well for our ability to use genetic research for the benefit of all and to not prevent the free flow of ideas.



    - I share other's concerns that there are already enough of us, that the poorest and most needy people on the planet will be the last to benefit from cloning, and that we could probably benefit humankind by doing other more constructive things we already know how to do. What are our priorities?



    - I'm not sure and haven't been for some time, how hard we should try and how much money we should spend to sustain human life or correct nature's "mistakes" (eg. IVF).



    - I distrust the medical establishment and have issues with the doctor-patient power relationship, especially the infallibility often attributed to them. I can see potential problems with cloning arising from that. (No offense French Mod )



    At the same time, I find these considerations in conflict with other ideas I hold dear - that the pursuit of knowledge is a good thing (even if there isn't an obvious point to it) and that irrational beliefs, gut feelings etc. aren't a good excuse for being a Luddite.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 34 of 51
    marcukmarcuk Posts: 4,442member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by benzene

    I take great offense at that. We're not trying to say evolution doesn't happen in some instances, only that you can't use the theory of evolution into explaning how life began.



    First of all I'd like to say that I did not realise you were a Creationist when I wrote that. But 'Precisely', The theory of evolution does not explain or make any attempts to explain how life began. It explains how life developed after it originated. SO TELL ME, WHY do Creationists have thousands of books trying to prove that the theory of Evolution is wrong, WHEN it is not even releavent to the issue?



    Abiogenesis IS your issue.



    And then Tell me IF you could prove the theory of Evolution was wrong, exactly how does that prove the Genesis Theory of Creation is Correct? Why don't you spend your time and resources finding evidence for your theory?



    You are relying on the ignorance of the average 'subjects' education and intellectual integrity, to conclude that it is either "evolution" or "Genesis". Black or White. That is just deception and dishonesty.



    Why is it that every Creationist Claim I've ever researched turns out to be a strawman, a deception of facts, or a downright lie, when I spend the time to check it out? IF your theory is Correct, why is the evidence for it non-existant, or fabricated. IF your God/theory is so great, why does it need people to lie and deceive for it?





    Quote:



    To evolve, you have to have a system in place to do so. Before life existed, no such luck. If you want to discuss the possbilites / parameters necessary for chemical evolution, I'd be more than happy to.




    Im sure you would, lets spend the next 3 years debating something thats not even relavent to the issue. Nothing like a good waste of time. Why dont we infact start debating the real issue, which is where is the evidence for your theory?, lets disguss the innerancy and divinity of the Bible, and lets look at the lack of evidence for a historical Jesus, and lets see how your God and idealogy developed from the astrotheologies of ancient civilizations. These are the real issues if you want to prove the Genesis theory of Creation is the truth.



    Quote:

    [/b]

    Evolution is like stem cells, good for some things, crap for other things.

    p.s. Max Planck was a scientist. Gravity is something we can measure and test hypotheses against. The beginning of time: No such luck. [/B]



    I know who Max Planck was, and heres a definition of the Plancks time I referred to 10^-43 seconds.

    http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/planck_time.html

    And just as Gravity is something we can measure and test hypotheses agains, so is the theory of Evolution. What's your point?



    I don't doubt you could hand me my ass if we started to disguss the specifics of biology. Like I said i've no qualifications in biology or Science. But I can spot deceit, deception and bogus arguments a mile away.



    Tell me something, do you believe that evidence exists that an increase of information in the genome has been observed? Is that what you're talking about when you say you accept evolution has happened in some instances, ie you only accept evolution produces a reduction of information?



    Actually you can tell me as much as you like about the chemistry of evolution. I'm quite happy to increase my knowledge, and when you're done you can then tell me all about the real issue - evidence for your theory.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 35 of 51
    randycat99randycat99 Posts: 1,919member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by benzene

    We're not trying to say evolution doesn't happen in some instances, only that you can't use the theory of evolution into explaning how life began.



    This part, I feel needs clarification, as it is one of the most commonly mistrued premises posed by the Creationist/Intelligent Design schema. You say the theory of evolution cannot explain how life began, as if to imply that the scientific community does do this. This is technically incorrect, whether it is an advertently poor choice of words/miscommunication on your part or you intentionally had that meaning in mind (in which case it would be the classic strawman argument). In actuality, the scientific community does NOT attempt to explain the origin of life via the theory of evolution, because that is definitively not what the theory of evolution was intended to explain. Those are 2 different topics of study altogether. The only persons who seem to consistently apply this case in discussion (with the predictable fail-ready conclusions) are the Creationist/Intelligent Design advocates, themselves.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 36 of 51
    marcukmarcuk Posts: 4,442member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by crazychester

    You're turning into Anna Mated again. Could we try and pull our collective fingers out and practise being dispassionate for a bit?



    I'm not right-wing or the least bit religious.







    Exactly why I got mad, I said "Banning stem cell research is a RW Fundie Creation agenda full stop" or there abouts. Which IS a Fact.



    As soon as Scott got hold of it, it was "anyone who doesn't agree with MarcUK's dogma is a right wing........"



    Thats not what I said. Scott twists context and meaning in practically every thread ever. Fuck Scott. He is a troll. Im sure he gets great pleasure in being an utter prick.



    Then Scott makes a downright deliberately dumb statement about involuntary research knowing full well Hardeehar never ever meant that. Scott twists context and meaning. Fuck Scott.



    RandyCat99 then asks for me to be moderated because I've made a joke out of the blockquote!!!. Well Fuck him too. I think Scott should be moderated for being a twat in nearly every thread he's ever posted in. Do I ever propose to mods to ban/warn people I dont like? NO. Free speech. I tolerate it, but some people cannot.



    Im going to stay away for a week or so. to cool off. Later
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 37 of 51
    Quote:

    Originally posted by MarcUK

    Blah, blah, blah......debating something thats not even relavent to the issue........blah, blah, blah.



    What you're going on about isn't relevant to the issue either. The discussion is about human cloning. The way the original post was phrased it presupposes that you believe cloning is possible. If anybody disapproves of cloning for religious reasons then they can certainly put them forth. But if they want to debate evolution OR abiogenesis they need to go start their own thread because that's not what this one's about.



    And the same applies to you because at the moment you're just hijacking Mero's topic.



    (And I have no idea why you worry so much about this stuff. If a government is promoting Creationism in schools that's one thing. But if anybody here wants to believe it, what the fuck does it matter?)



    Edit: Removing the incorrect apostrophe before Placebo sees it.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 38 of 51
    randycat99randycat99 Posts: 1,919member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by MarcUK

    Im going to stay away for a week or so. to cool off. Later



    Better make it 0000 0010, anger-boy!
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 39 of 51
    marcukmarcuk Posts: 4,442member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Randycat99

    This part, I feel needs clarification, as it is one of the most commonly mistrued premises posed by the Creationist/Intelligent Design schema. You say the theory of evolution cannot explain how life began, as if to imply that the scientific community does do this. This is technically incorrect, whether it is an advertently poor choice of words/miscommunication on your part or you intentionally had that meaning in mind (in which case it would be the classic strawman argument). In actuality, the scientific community does NOT attempt to explain the origin of life via the theory of evolution, because that is definitively not what the theory of evolution was intended to explain. Those are 2 different topics of study altogether. The only persons who seem to consistently apply this case in discussion (with the predictable fail-ready conclusions) are the Creationist/Intelligent Design advocates, themselves.



    No, Its no poor choice, It part and parcel of the full deception of the lie of listening to the Creationists evidence against evolution. Its maintained by practically every one of them I've ever spoken too.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 40 of 51
    marcukmarcuk Posts: 4,442member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Randycat99

    Better make it 0000 0010, anger-boy!



    Sure will. Peace. Two weeks Actually If Im not banned I'll come back on Nov 2nd
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.