Taft2016
Verified User
Read Lord Meathead. Learn something. It's an uphill battle but they are studying new pathways to success.
http://archive.archaeology.org/1003/etc/neanderthals.html
Ethical Question: Cloning Neanderthal
- Thread starter Taft2016
- Start date
Read Lord Meathead. Learn something. It's an uphill battle but they are studying new pathways to success.
http://archive.archaeology.org/1003/etc/neanderthals.html
Is that how you excuse your desire to do violence against humans that are different than you, "it's natural."
Taft2016
Verified User
I did. This will be the third time now, Sherlock.
http://archive.archaeology.org/1003/etc/neanderthals.html
Like I told your fellow dweller of motherhood basements, I don't wish to discuss science fiction.
Bigdog
Harris - make America a 3rd world shithole
I have no such desire. I'm a live and let live kind of guy, not an authoritarian socialist pig.
I read where your dumbass said it's something that "may someday be possible."
It's okay TapsOut, you don't have to answer the question. Quit crying and pull yourself together.
Taft2016
Verified User
And here's an update from this past summer Dickwad:
http://www.naturalnews.com/054766_genetic_engineering_Neanderthal_child_Harvard.html
http://www.naturalnews.com/054766_genetic_engineering_Neanderthal_child_Harvard.html
Someday it might be possible for you to have sex with a girl, instead of your hand....................No promises though
Bigdog
Harris - make America a 3rd world shithole
Is an unborn human a person? ... at what point do you draw the line when defining what constitutes a person? ... is a human life sacred even if it's not a "person"?
Taft2016
Verified User
Which is part of the nuanced discussion I was getting at again, thank you.
Something clearly too complex for Dickwad to understand.
There really are no right or wrong answers here. It's supposed to be a discussion of ethics, which Dickwad clearly has none of.
Taft2016
Verified User
A bit probably. But Church is mentioned in the other article, so he's a known expert in the field.
Regardless. Cloning is far less science fiction than man colonizing another planet and splitting off into two species.
And you're dragging the conversation afield from what it was presented as, a discussion of the ethics involved.
But it appears you always have to run off on tangents and beat your chest over irrelevancies.
Yes, that is BS!
http://archive.boston.com/news/scie...fic-literacy/GhI9QgBG9FjRxMCzpXOuWJ/blog.html
Harvard Medical School genetics professor George Church found himself at the middle of a viral Internet kerfuffle this weekend. Blogs and news websites picked up on an interview in the German publication, Der Spiegel, and distorted his speculative comments about the technological feasibility of cloning a Neanderthal to suggest the scientist was looking for volunteers: “Wanted: ‘Adventurous woman’ to give birth to Neanderthal man—Harvard professor seeks mother for cloned cave baby,” the Daily Mail newspaper in the United Kingdom announced.
The interview, if one bothers to read it, is prototypically Church: it unflinchingly looks toward the technology of the future, taking an optimistic and expansive view of what will one day be possible. The discussion unfolds like a thought experiment, with Church considering the ethical, social, and regulatory issues that could arise from a range of potential futuristic scenarios, from recreating Neanderthals to creating new life forms.
The passage that got him in particular trouble is here:
SPIEGEL: Setting aside all ethical doubts, do you believe it is technically possible to reproduce the Neanderthal?
Church: The first thing you have to do is to sequence the Neanderthal genome, and that has actually been done. The next step would be to chop this genome up into, say, 10,000 chunks and then synthesize these. Finally, you would introduce these chunks into a human stem cell. If we do that often enough, then we would generate a stem cell line that would get closer and closer to the corresponding sequence of the Neanderthal. We developed the semi-automated procedure required to do that in my lab. Finally, we assemble all the chunks in a human stem cell, which would enable you to finally create a Neanderthal clone.
SPIEGEL: And the surrogates would be human, right? In your book you write that an “extremely adventurous female human” could serve as the surrogate mother.
Church: Yes. However, the prerequisite would, of course, be that human cloning is acceptable to society.
In a phone interview Tuesday, Church noted that he is not working on sequencing Neanderthal DNA. He is not synthesizing it. He is not working on cloning any whole organisms, Neanderthal or otherwise. He said the pickup of the news story and the subsequent headline creep online has been instructive and made him concerned about the level of basic science literacy, in comparison to other spheres of society.
“When you see how gullible people were on this particular incident, I wonder,” Church said. “If we really talked about [science] as much as we talk about other things,” would this same thing have happened?
For example, Church said, “if somebody had said that some football team had thrown a 200-yard pass, everyone would have laughed and said, ‘April fools!’ and something got distorted. But this is a much longer pass than a 200-yard pass” and people were willing to believe it unquestioningly and pass it on, letting the story grow more outlandish with each iteration.
Church is willing to talk and think big, which is partly why he has been so successful as a scientist, and also part of what made his comments so ripe to be taken out of context. He thinks far ahead, he said, because the change he’s seen over his career in science has been so massive. He’s helped enable a downward spiral in the cost of sequencing DNA, from around $3 billion to $3,000 for an entire human genome.
“So I have a tendency to think in increments bigger than I, say, would have when I was younger,” Church said.
He sees communication with the public as a major part of his job and added that he doesn’t think this incident will cause him to shy away from talking openly about the future trajectory of science. If anything, it argues for greater engagement with communicating science, Church said, so that politicians, chief executives, and the general public can engage seriously with the topic.
He hopes that greater understanding will mean a less credulous audience. But he said much of the reaction has been supportive. More than 100 people have e-mailed him, volunteering for the job of being surrogate to the first cloned Neanderthal. Unfortunately, as they could have found out by reading his interview, that job isn’t open—in his lab, or anyone else’s.
http://archive.boston.com/news/scie...fic-literacy/GhI9QgBG9FjRxMCzpXOuWJ/blog.html
Harvard Medical School genetics professor George Church found himself at the middle of a viral Internet kerfuffle this weekend. Blogs and news websites picked up on an interview in the German publication, Der Spiegel, and distorted his speculative comments about the technological feasibility of cloning a Neanderthal to suggest the scientist was looking for volunteers: “Wanted: ‘Adventurous woman’ to give birth to Neanderthal man—Harvard professor seeks mother for cloned cave baby,” the Daily Mail newspaper in the United Kingdom announced.
The interview, if one bothers to read it, is prototypically Church: it unflinchingly looks toward the technology of the future, taking an optimistic and expansive view of what will one day be possible. The discussion unfolds like a thought experiment, with Church considering the ethical, social, and regulatory issues that could arise from a range of potential futuristic scenarios, from recreating Neanderthals to creating new life forms.
The passage that got him in particular trouble is here:
SPIEGEL: Setting aside all ethical doubts, do you believe it is technically possible to reproduce the Neanderthal?
Church: The first thing you have to do is to sequence the Neanderthal genome, and that has actually been done. The next step would be to chop this genome up into, say, 10,000 chunks and then synthesize these. Finally, you would introduce these chunks into a human stem cell. If we do that often enough, then we would generate a stem cell line that would get closer and closer to the corresponding sequence of the Neanderthal. We developed the semi-automated procedure required to do that in my lab. Finally, we assemble all the chunks in a human stem cell, which would enable you to finally create a Neanderthal clone.
SPIEGEL: And the surrogates would be human, right? In your book you write that an “extremely adventurous female human” could serve as the surrogate mother.
Church: Yes. However, the prerequisite would, of course, be that human cloning is acceptable to society.
In a phone interview Tuesday, Church noted that he is not working on sequencing Neanderthal DNA. He is not synthesizing it. He is not working on cloning any whole organisms, Neanderthal or otherwise. He said the pickup of the news story and the subsequent headline creep online has been instructive and made him concerned about the level of basic science literacy, in comparison to other spheres of society.
“When you see how gullible people were on this particular incident, I wonder,” Church said. “If we really talked about [science] as much as we talk about other things,” would this same thing have happened?
For example, Church said, “if somebody had said that some football team had thrown a 200-yard pass, everyone would have laughed and said, ‘April fools!’ and something got distorted. But this is a much longer pass than a 200-yard pass” and people were willing to believe it unquestioningly and pass it on, letting the story grow more outlandish with each iteration.
Church is willing to talk and think big, which is partly why he has been so successful as a scientist, and also part of what made his comments so ripe to be taken out of context. He thinks far ahead, he said, because the change he’s seen over his career in science has been so massive. He’s helped enable a downward spiral in the cost of sequencing DNA, from around $3 billion to $3,000 for an entire human genome.
“So I have a tendency to think in increments bigger than I, say, would have when I was younger,” Church said.
He sees communication with the public as a major part of his job and added that he doesn’t think this incident will cause him to shy away from talking openly about the future trajectory of science. If anything, it argues for greater engagement with communicating science, Church said, so that politicians, chief executives, and the general public can engage seriously with the topic.
He hopes that greater understanding will mean a less credulous audience. But he said much of the reaction has been supportive. More than 100 people have e-mailed him, volunteering for the job of being surrogate to the first cloned Neanderthal. Unfortunately, as they could have found out by reading his interview, that job isn’t open—in his lab, or anyone else’s.
Wow, you are really dumb. Try one more time...
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Taft2016
Verified User
Here is his interview from Spiegel:
http://www.spiegel.de/international...truction-material-of-the-future-a-877634.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international...truction-material-of-the-future-a-877634.html
I read the article. The cloning portion had more "ifs" and "coulds" than you can shake a stick at. I'm embarrassed for the others who engaged the rest of the notion.
No rights for Superman? That's OK. He can do whatever he wants anyway.
Hey. Watch this from "Big Man on Campus". Bob Maloogaloogaloogalooga is just the guy you're looking for!
Last edited:
Taft2016
Verified User
So, you see Church clearly said he believes he will see it in his lifetime.
Now all you need to do is find a scientist who will predict we will colonize another planet and split off into two species within our lifetime and I'll concede you're not speaking about science fiction either.
I'll just wait....
Now all you need to do is find a scientist who will predict we will colonize another planet and split off into two species within our lifetime and I'll concede you're not speaking about science fiction either.
I'll just wait....
I am discussing the ethics of enslaving humans. My question was about that same thing.
I am not on a tangent. You are a fucking moron and a coward who is trying to change the subject to abortion because you don't want to address the point I made about the ethics of enslaving humans.
He also said you were gullible and expressed concern about your basic level of science literacy. Here's what he said about those who fell for the Natural News story you sourced...
Taft2016
Verified User
Yes, I'm sure their PhDs don't stack up against your matchbook cover correspondence school for air conditioning and refrigeration certificate.
Taft2016
Verified User
He said he expects to see it in his lifetime. That was my point, which you dismissed.
So, you were wrong.
Again.
Sad.
Just as you have to keep dragging conversations off onto irrelevant tangents.
Sad.