|
|
|
|
Uber Member
|
|
Dec 24, 2008, 08:26 AM
|
|
Hello again, boys:
We agree, then. As I said earlier, the elephant may very well have loftier ideals.
excon
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Dec 24, 2008, 08:46 AM
|
|
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, boys:
We agree, then. As I said earlier, the elephant may very well have loftier ideals.
excon
Yeah, like adapting to climate change.
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Dec 24, 2008, 02:49 PM
|
|
Originally Posted by tomder55
Jillian . my edit was an attempt to bring the discussion to philosophical stuff.
Can someone explain scientifically why humans are seemingly so much more advanced than any other animal life on the planet ?
Philosophy is like theoretcal physics - it's just makin' stuff up as you go along! :D
We're more advanced because our ancestors all the way down the line demanded it. We went one way, elephants went another. It's a result of environment, opportunity, breeding, mutations, etc. We also started eating a different diet, our brains grew, and we started to dominate the landscape. We got smart enough to use weapons in an effective and consistent way, and our brains grew even more. Brain mass really doesn't mean much; it's <ahem> not about the size, but how you use it.
I haven't had a chance to watch this entire documentery, but what I've seen is pretty good: Becoming Human: Paleoanthropology, Evolution and Human Origins. There's a section under "Anatomy" called "Big Brains" that is especially interesting.
Sorry, I'm gettin' all scienc-y again.
Here's an interesting TIME article from 1999 talking about "Designer Babies". It brings up all of the same ethical concerns we still have today. It also makes an interesting comparison to IVF treatment when it was first introduced, and how people rallied against it, but now it's common and accepted. Could designer babies play out the same way? Designer Babies - TIME
|
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Dec 24, 2008, 06:03 PM
|
|
Cancer and the Shark Immune System
EX;
Amazing that we consider ourselves " more evolved" and science is dedicated to improving quantity and quality of life yet, an ancient species, at least anecdotaly, has very low rates of cancer and infection.
If sharks are about 400 million years old, why did they stay with an arguable better immune system, while we humans, a newer species, are prone to infections and cancer?
g&P
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Dec 24, 2008, 06:19 PM
|
|
With any astounding scientific discovery there will always be some egocentric scientist who will exploit it for personal gain and by that I mean power.
Its not the science that is to blame it's the power trip of people who want to change our evolution.
No it is not right,it is playing God and even though I believe the science is God inspired I do not believe he wants us to *recreate* man as we know it.
Good thought provoking questions all excon.. keep them coming ,you certainly create a lot of dialogue!
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Dec 25, 2008, 04:26 AM
|
|
Nothing said so far makes an adequate scientific explanation for the cognitive rift between humans and animals. The philosophical explanation I have is not making it up as I go along. Rather ;it has been a standard belief of my faith for centuries.
As far as designer babies goes... there has to be an ethical standard applied to the research. As a society we have a right to set the standard.
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Dec 25, 2008, 11:08 AM
|
|
Originally Posted by tomder55
Nothing said so far makes an adequate scientific explanation for the cognitive rift between humans and animals. The philosophical explanation I have is not making it up as I go along. Rather ;it has been a standard belief of my faith for centuries.
I was poking fun at philosophy (and physics), not you; please don't be offended. :o
I don't know what you consider adequate scientific evidence, but the difference in cognition is explained by the many, many years of different evolutionary paths. Those paths led to different diets, different environmental demands, different brain sizes and abilities, the development of language, the development of society and culture, etc. I'm not sure "adequate scientific evidence" can be presented in a short, simple statement (if that's what you're looking for); it requires a large overall understanding of evolution.
As far as designer babies goes... there has to be an ethical standard applied to the research. As a society we have a right to set the standard.
Very true. Such a standard is being applied to cloning techniques; this isn't much different. I don't think, however, the objective of the scientists performing this research is to breed a superior race, but rather, to eliminate disease. That objective, of course, could change down the line. That's where the big ethical implications come in to play.
|
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Dec 25, 2008, 04:31 PM
|
|
Originally Posted by tomder55
Nothing said so far makes an adequate scientific explanation for the cognitive rift between humans and animals. The philosophical explanation I have is not making it up as I go along. Rather ;it has been a standard belief of my faith for centuries.
As far as designer babies goes.....there has to be an ethical standard applied to the research. As a society we have a right to set the standard.
I agree, what evolutionary advantage is there to music or art or philosophy or religion or self sacrifice?
If sharks are blessed with simple though more effective immune systems 100s of millions before humans, why was that successful system not carried forward to the succeeding branches in the evolutionary tree that culminates in us humans?
As it is medical science and biotechnology is purposeful use of intelligence and design.
G&P
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Dec 26, 2008, 03:31 AM
|
|
what evolutionary advantage is there to music
Handel's assistant walked in to Handel's room after shouting to him for several minutes with no response. The assistant found Handel in tears, and when asked what was wrong, Handel held up the score he had finished to the 'Hallelujah Chorus' of his oratorio 'Messiah' and said, 'I thought I saw the face of God'.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah_(Handel)
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Dec 26, 2008, 04:04 AM
|
|
I don't think, however, the objective of the scientists performing this research is to breed a superior race, but rather, to eliminate disease. That objective, of course, could change down the line. That's where the big ethical implications come in to play.
The debate has already begun as to how far to push the ethics.. During the campaign Sarah Palin taking Trig to term was a hot topic. We must not forget that neo-Darwinian eugenics was a bigger movement in this country than Nazi Germany .
David Morgan, Yale Study: U.S. Eugenics Paralleled Nazi Germany
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Dec 26, 2008, 07:24 AM
|
|
Originally Posted by tomder55
I didn't say the ethics debate hasn't begun - there will be people who are against this sort of gene manipulation no matter what; just as there are some people who oppose the HPV shot, vaccinations, or other medical treatments. Do you anticipate gene manipulation will become mandatory for one to get pregnant?
Eugenics and Darwinism aren't the same thing. There is a huge difference between socal Darwinism and the belief in evolution. Not a single evolutionist I know supports eugenics or social Darwinism. Darwin himself acknowledged using evolution as a social model was a bad idea.
|
|
|
Uber Member
|
|
Dec 26, 2008, 07:35 AM
|
|
Originally Posted by inthebox
Amazing that we consider ourselves " more evolved" and science is dedicated to improving quantity and quality of life yet, an ancient species, at least anecdotaly, has very low rates of cancer and infection.
If sharks are about 400 million years old, why did they stay with an arguable better immune system, while we humans, a newer species, are prone to infections and cancer?
Hello again, in:
Couple things. We aren't "more" evolved. We're just as evolved as any species is at this time. ALL of us evolved at the same rate, so no species is any more evolved than any other. We happen to have evolved bigger brains. Sharks happen to have evolved better imune systems...
Ok, so?? There's a lot of species that have advantages over humans, including, apparently, sharks. But, we don't come from sharks so we wouldn't have inherited any shark stuff. Because we're "more" evolved, I guess you think that means we should have evolved all the good stuff that ANY species has, and discarded all the BAD stuff that ANY species has.
THAT just isn't so. I know you don't have an understanding of evolution except what your church tells you about it. But, a basic understanding of the subject would help you discuss it intelligently. You are designed to speak intelligently about it, aren't you?
Then you ask, ".. what evolutionary advantage is there to music or art or philosophy or religion or self sacrifice?"
I suggest we'll find out what those advantages are, IF we evolve into beings that create better music, understand philosophy better and grasp what religion and self sacrifice mean.
Maybe it'll be better. Maybe it won't. Evolution, even the man made variety, doesn't always work out. Maybe, in the process of making us better musicians, we'll make ourselves sterile and end mankind.
I don't know.
excon
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Dec 26, 2008, 08:09 AM
|
|
Do you anticipate gene manipulation will become mandatory for one to get pregnant?
I don't know where it is going... the presumption in the posting is that it is all a good thing. I think the pursuit of gene manipulation to cure disease is fine .It should only be under taken in cases where the benefits will outweigh the risks, as in the treatment of life-threatening illness.
So long as we recognize and guard against the pandora's box of unintended consequences waiting to be unlocked then I'm satisfied .
But I see the rush to make a human Dolly ;or manipulation that simply alters the human genome for purposes other than curing genetic disease as very irresponsible.
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Dec 26, 2008, 09:07 AM
|
|
Originally Posted by tomder55
I don't know where it is going .....the presumption in the posting is that it is all a good thing. I think the persuit of gene manipulation to cure disease is fine .It should only be under taken in cases where the benefits will outweigh the risks, as in the treatment of life-threatening illness.
So long as we recognize and guard against the pandora's box of unintended consequences waiting to be unlocked then I'm satisfied .
But I see the rush to make a human Dolly ;or manipulation that simply alters the human genome for purposes other than curing genetic disease as very irresponsible.
I agree, making changes for reasons other than curing disease is irresponsible. There's no legitimate reason for my kids to have my eyes and my husband's chin. I really think a lot of the hype around creating a "Dolly" or manipulating the genome to make actual designer babies (with pre-determined features, traits, etc) is inflated by the media. The vast majority of scientists do have morals and ethics, which is why the research is geared toward disease, not eye color. But let's face it, more people will read the story if they write about "super-babies".
|
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Dec 26, 2008, 12:15 PM
|
|
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, in:
Couple things. We aren't "more" evolved. We're just as evolved as any species is at this time. ALL of us evolved at the same rate, so no species is any more evolved than any other. We happen to have evolved bigger brains. Sharks happen to have evolved better imune systems...
Ok, so?? There's a lot of species that have advantages over humans, including, apparently, sharks. But, we don't come from sharks so we wouldn't have inherited any shark stuff. Because we're "more" evolved, I guess you think that means we should have evolved all the good stuff that ANY species has, and discarded all the BAD stuff that ANY species has.
THAT just isn't so. I know you don't have an understanding of evolution except what your church tells you about it. But, a basic understanding of the subject would help you discuss it intelligently. You are designed to speak intelligently about it, aren't you?
Then you ask, ".. what evolutionary advantage is there to music or art or philosophy or religion or self sacrifice?"
I suggest we'll find out what those advantages are, IF we evolve into beings that create better music, understand philosophy better and grasp what religion and self sacrifice mean.
Maybe it'll be better. Maybe it won't. Evolution, even the man made variety, doesn't always work out. Maybe, in the process of making us better musicians, we'll make ourselves sterile and end mankind.
I don't know.
Excon
By saying that humans are more evolved, I mean we are the dominant species on this planet and can change our environment [ at least that is what the global warming hysterics believe ]. Other than from our fellow human beings and microbes we are not prey to a more dominant species.
We don't come from sharks? But is that not what the evolutionists would have us believe ? We, humans, primates, mammals, amphibians etc... hundreds of milllions of years ago have a common ancestor . Is that not the darwinian tree of life doctrine?
And rather than attack my understanding of evolution why don't you answer the evolutionary question about the reproductive advantages of music or philosophy or art or religion?
Really, If I can sing Marvin Gaye's "Lets get it on" well enough to reproduce at a higher rate than my other karaoke competitors, which gene am I passing on? :p Oh that is right Darwin did not know of genes.
And speaking of evolutionary rates - why has the shark or sponge or chimp not evolved into some other form of life? Why has not humanity evolved wings or infrared vision or 2 hearts, all traits that have arguable reproductive and survival benefits.
Stem Cell Therapies For Heart Disease
"Our findings showed that heart attack patients possess [ they don't need embryonic stem cells] the functional cells needed to repair blood supply to their heart, but they're hidden amongst a muddle of others."....
"The team have made fascinating discoveries about our DIY repair systems and have translated them into practical use. They've intelligently employed the body's own strategies to develop a method that may take us a step closer to truly effective stem cell therapies for heart patients."
Notice that there is no mention of evolution being necessary for this ;)
Science is observable [ something that cannot be said for how we "evolved" - who saw this? ], repeatable, and can be tested .
Faraday or Joule could repeat experiments on magnets and energy over and over and over. Their experiments could be replicated by others. The laws they described led to inventions – motors, space heaters, electromagnets – that validate their conclusions every day.
Before you counter with, oh but we breed, have scientists created a new species of lab rat or fruit fly or a new type of dog?
So evolution has nothing to do with potential cures to diseases. Science, intelligence, and design are the only prerequisites.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But on to the question, if we could have designer babies:
Would that lead to genetic discrimination - " Gattaca " like?
g&p
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Dec 26, 2008, 01:55 PM
|
|
Ex,
Great question..
Do I want a designer baby? Probably not.
If I were to ask my friend who's niece has a half developed brain and needs constant therapy to make sure the little one learns as much motor coordination as she grows up,may have a different answer.
The question is whether designer babies will actually survive in a world where new threats are discovered everyday due to pollution,contamination and new found diseases.
Does the designer baby become immune to all diseases or does it die instantly when faced with a new disease rather than build up on its existing immune system?
And if we are going to be eliminating diseases that may threaten a baby, does this include genetic diseases as well as diseases contracted from outside sources.
And by designing do we mean that we can choose the talent,moods,emotional balance of the individual as guaranteed to be normal as the baby grows up?
And normal according to who's standards I wonder... my definition of normal may very much differ from the definition of normal by, say a serial killer (who has the resources to have his/her own designer baby.Dread to think what that list will include!).
Now comes the question of who decides which parent can have their wish list fulfilled?
Do only the rich elite get to have their designer babies?
Does this mean that the designer babies will all grow up to be great leaders and eliminate the need for any discord between the rich and the poor?
And the gap between the designer and non designer babies.Are the DB's going to ace in their chosen fields that there is no room for the average individual in the institutions related to study or work?
I am probably babbling here.. it is late and maybe I should post when I am less sleepy,with less chance of making a fool of myself. :)
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Dec 26, 2008, 02:06 PM
|
|
Firm
Excellent points to ponder. Not babbling in my book . What is the average life span of the "Dolly "successes ? Do they even tell us how often they discard the failed attempts ?
|
|
|
Uber Member
|
|
Dec 26, 2008, 02:08 PM
|
|
Originally Posted by tomder55
What is the average life span of the "Dolly "successes ? Do they even tell us how often they discard the failed attempts ?
Isn't "Dolly" a clone?
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Dec 27, 2008, 01:37 AM
|
|
Yes, dolly was a clone. Interesting to read she was thought to have been born the genetic age of six years old.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolly_(sheep)
On designer babies: if substantial numbers of parents already support their child undergoing plastic surgery for leg extensions and nose jobs for what they believe will give their child a better chance in life (not just for survival), then we can safely assume an equal number of parents would readily agree to their child being given favoured attributes in utero. So no doubt there would be a ready market, if allowed to take it that far.
|
|
Question Tools |
Search this Question |
|
|
Add your answer here.
Check out some similar questions!
No Evolution
[ 17 Answers ]
Dear Sir,
Any chance of finding answers to the following?
10,000 years ago, were our insides basically the same as they are now? IE: One heart, 2 lungs, 2 kidneys, one liver etc.
We know our brains and bodies are bigger, however, does the internal sameness extend back further and if it does,...
Evolution
[ 9 Answers ]
As I understand it, according to Evolution Theory, in the vast passage of time in the past a species has gradually evolved (and will evolve in future) into another species when (1) the instinct to survive has "warned" a species that its survival was doomed through rise of some hostile element in...
Evolution anyone?
[ 63 Answers ]
I have read bits and pieces on evolution and its theories.
If someone could simplify it and tell me in a way the average person understands I would be grateful.:)
Also how much of it has been proven without doubt and how much remains to be researched?
Also if you could give examples of...
Evolution
[ 2 Answers ]
As I understand it, according to Evolution Theory, in the vast passage of time in the past a species has gradually evolved (and will evolve in future) into another species when (1) the instinct to survive has "warned" a species that its survival was doomed through rise of some hostile element in...
View more questions
Search
|