[mike777]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1322...er-cybrids.html

Another church vs science fight.

"Scientists are responding angrily to claims by the Catholic church that a new bill currently before the UK Parliament "will allow scientists to create embryos that are half human, half animal"."

[matmat]

i see nothing wrong with a Centaur running around Oxford street.

[Al_U_Card]

Scientists vs Naturalists.......sounds like a bridge contest.

Right now, you are eating food that has fish and bug genes spliced into it. We are so frankensteined already that we should see the bolts in our necks any day now.

[pclayton]

Yes I'd be very upset if my son married a mermaid or my daughter hooked up with a centaur.

Inviting the inlaws over would be an issue since we don't like to eat grass or mackeral.

Us catholics obviously have it right

[luke warm]

incredible... once the technology exists there's no stopping the direction it will take... i don't see much point in fighting it

[helene_t]

I don't see the problem. As long as the embryos are not allowed to develop nerve tissue advanced enough to feel anything. My guess is that they will not be kept alive for more than a couple of cell divisions.

[sceptic]

well if GOD gaves us brains and the ability to be creative in what we do (as he does move in mysterious ways) should we not try and manipulate the gene pools of life and create new types of life, to compensate for the right we seem to have given ourselves to destroy life with our way of living, maybe that is the answer to the ultimate question, GOD does not exist, we are GOD

[luke warm]

sceptic, on Jan 29 2008, 02:42 AM, said:

well if GOD gaves us brains and the ability to be creative in what we do (as he does move in mysterious ways) should we not try and manipulate the gene pools of life and create new types of life, to compensate for the right we seem to have given ourselves to destroy life with our way of living, maybe that is the answer to the ultimate question, GOD does not exist, we are GOD

children are creative enough to manipulate the colors of our walls with the use of crayons, etc... this doesn't mean that parents don't exist

[sceptic]

Jesus only had one biological parent, explain that to me?

[Al_U_Card]

Parthenogenesis (from the Greek παρθένος parthenos, "virgin", + γένεσις genesis, "creation") is an asexual form of reproduction found in females where growth and development of an embryo or seed occurs without fertilization by males. The offspring produced by parthenogenesis are always female in species where the XY chromosome system determines gender.

But didn't those Elohim have access to advanced cloning techniques too?

[sceptic]

Al_U_Card, on Jan 29 2008, 05:42 PM, said:

Parthenogenesis (from the Greek παρθένος parthenos, "virgin", + γένεσις genesis, "creation") is an asexual form of reproduction found in females where growth and development of an embryo or seed occurs without fertilization by males. The offspring produced by parthenogenesis are always female in species where the XY chromosome system determines gender.

But didn't those Elohim have access to advanced cloning techniques too?

clever bugger

[Al_U_Card]

I gather that "virgin birth" is a euphemism for an awakening or consciousness raising whereby a new idea or concept springs to life seemingly from nowhere without precognition. ... did somebody mention 'shrooms?

[whereagles]

Science > religion because science has predictive power. To ignore that is irrational. But then again... humans ARE irrational.

[luke warm]

whereagles, on Jan 30 2008, 01:46 PM, said:

Science > religion because science has predictive power. To ignore that is irrational. But then again... humans ARE irrational.

i don't follow the logic... is that the same as saying:

nostradamus > einstein because nostradamus had predictive power and to ignore that is irrational?

[helene_t]

If you really believe Nostradamus had predictive power, yes. Not sure if the purpose of religion is to predict, though, but what do I know.

[gwnn]

whereagles, on Jan 30 2008, 08:46 PM, said:

Science > religion because science has predictive power. To ignore that is irrational. But then again... humans ARE irrational.

Religion>Science because it precedes it alphabetically. To ignore that would be irrational.

[Al_U_Card]

Interesting.

Science is a tool/method while faith is an intention. When you believe you invigorate your faith and validate it. When you believe in your science you bring it into question. The two are polar opposites and it is pretty useless to compare them. (That old apples and oranges thingie.)

[mikeh]

luke warm, on Jan 31 2008, 11:54 AM, said:

whereagles, on Jan 30 2008, 01:46 PM, said:

Science > religion because science has predictive power. To ignore that is irrational. But then again... humans ARE irrational.

i don't follow the logic... is that the same as saying:

nostradamus > einstein because nostradamus had predictive power and to ignore that is irrational?

perhaps better stated as "science > religion because science has predictive power while religion has only predictive pretensions"

BTW, this is analgous to the einstein/nostradamus comparison, since Einstein's theories did in fact have predictive power, while the quatrains of Nostradamus require, to 'prove' their predictive pretensions the same kind of contorted analysis to which religious texts are often subjected.

[matmat]

gwnn, on Jan 31 2008, 12:09 PM, said:

Religion>Science because it precedes it alphabetically. To ignore that would be irrational.

alphabetical order depends on language.

[mike777]

helene_t, on Jan 28 2008, 07:46 PM, said:

I don't see the problem. As long as the embryos are not allowed to develop nerve tissue advanced enough to feel anything. My guess is that they will not be kept alive for more than a couple of cell divisions.

Why not keep them alive for billions of cell divisions? Who decides and how do they get that power?

I assume at some point, perhaps today, smart child students can do this in their basement labs?


This does seem to be exercising the power of God and life and death over what they create? Human genes decide what other genes or cells get to live or die and for whatever reasons human genes want? This sounds like the religion of human genes.

At worst it seems discrimination to stop it.