Cloned Neanderthals?
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
![]() |
Master ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() So here is the question how far should we go if we can clone rats should we? If we can clone sheep should we? If we can clone humans should we? seems like the common answers I get are yes, yes, NO well what about Neanderthals?http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/10/scientists-clone-neanderthals/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+foxnews%252Fscitech+%2528Text+-+SciTech%2529 Interesting read kind of goes to the Jurrasic Park of many years ago. I have a side bet on this post! |
|
![]() ![]() |
Iron Donkey![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() They must have since Geico uses them in their ads. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() maybe we can clone some punctuation marks |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Judging by some of the people I've met, I thought we already had. |
![]() ![]() |
Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() mrbbrad - 2010-02-10 3:17 PM maybe we can clone some punctuation marks ... |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() gearboy - 2010-02-10 4:27 PM Judging by some of the people I've met, I thought we already had. my thoughts exactly! |
|
![]() ![]() |
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() I would vote no to cloned neanderthals. It is my educated guess that the clone would be a breeding ground for a highly infectious virus that would transform modern men into mindless, violent creatures that would eat uninfected humans, infecting any who survived. It would turn the world into an apocolyptic wasteland in a year or two. Although, it might be worth it in the name of science. |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() What a silly concept, "neanderthal." My Intelligent Design books clearly explain there's no such thing...they were just very strong humans. Seriously, if cloning a neanderthal would benefit mankind in some way, I'm all for it...likewise with humans...only if it will benefit mankind. I could care less if it hurt people's feelings. If there is a high probability something like that would help improve life as we know it, where's the problem? |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() ChineseDemocracy - 2010-02-10 4:18 PM What a silly concept, "neanderthal." My Intelligent Design books clearly explain there's no such thing...they were just very strong humans. Seriously, if cloning a neanderthal would benefit mankind in some way, I'm all for it...likewise with humans...only if it will benefit mankind. I could care less if it hurt people's feelings. If there is a high probability something like that would help improve life as we know it, where's the problem? Four little words Tag-team Neanderthal wrestling |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() ride_like_u_stole_it - 2010-02-10 4:24 PM ChineseDemocracy - 2010-02-10 4:18 PM What a silly concept, "neanderthal." My Intelligent Design books clearly explain there's no such thing...they were just very strong humans. Seriously, if cloning a neanderthal would benefit mankind in some way, I'm all for it...likewise with humans...only if it will benefit mankind. I could care less if it hurt people's feelings. If there is a high probability something like that would help improve life as we know it, where's the problem? Four little words Tag-team Neanderthal wrestling Would they be American Neanderthals? If not, then I say "Nay!" |
![]() ![]() |
Extreme Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() ride_like_u_stole_it - 2010-02-10 2:24 PM ChineseDemocracy - 2010-02-10 4:18 PM What a silly concept, "neanderthal." My Intelligent Design books clearly explain there's no such thing...they were just very strong humans. Seriously, if cloning a neanderthal would benefit mankind in some way, I'm all for it...likewise with humans...only if it will benefit mankind. I could care less if it hurt people's feelings. If there is a high probability something like that would help improve life as we know it, where's the problem? Four little words Tag-team Midget Neanderthal wrestling Fixed that for you. I would propose a question though, In a race who would win, the Neanderthal or The Bear and how would you know which is which? ![]()
(all in good fun Bear) |
|
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() I have two words for you:"Reality Television". Survivor: Arctic Circle Neanderthal Idol The Biggest Loser: Hunters and Gatherers Neanderthal Apprentice - Donald Trump looks for a prehistoric companion to make his own hair look less silly. The treatments write themselves. Someone get me Jeff Probst's number. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Um..playing God is usually not a good thing. Cloning people... not a good thing. Farming bodies for parts, not so good. Harvesting partially born babies' brains for reasearch, not good. Any use of power that causes humans to be slaves, used as body parts, experimented on against their will, inosent folks tortured for the "gains of science" so that rich folks can get transplants and live a few more years at the cost of another person's life.. not good. |
![]() ![]() |
Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Baowolf - 2010-02-12 12:24 PM Um..playing God is usually not a good thing. Except on a sunny day when you have an ant under a magnifying glass and use your grace to spare his life. Edited by roch1009 2010-02-12 11:30 AM |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Baowolf - 2010-02-12 12:24 PM Um..playing God is usually not a good thing. Cloning people... not a good thing. Farming bodies for parts, not so good. Harvesting partially born babies' brains for reasearch, not good. Any use of power that causes humans to be slaves, used as body parts, experimented on against their will, inosent folks tortured for the "gains of science" so that rich folks can get transplants and live a few more years at the cost of another person's life.. not good. Please don't confuse science with science fiction. The whole "playing God" reference is quite silly. Had society not decided to "play God," I wouldn't be typing this entry because I wouldn't have been able to read or write. Ya see, God must have a sense of humor...he gave me really bad eyesight. I'm glad humans invented corrective lenses. Mankind "plays God" every day, and we should all be very grateful we do. Medical treatments and cures don't magically appear. They are the bi-products of scientific efforts. Honestly, those who don't take the time to understand evolution are really doing themselves a disservice. It's like folks back in the 1980's labeling computers as a fad that would surely fade away. ![]() I am compelled to ask, because there really are people out there that don't understand/acknowledge the existence of evolution/natural selection...what were these creatures scientists have labeled as "Neanderthals?" What about earlier branches of our evolutionary tree? Did we co-exist with dinosaurs despite the fact every reputable scientist alive today knows that idea is insanity? Is carbon dating a tool scientists use to perpetuate the myth of evolution? Okay, too many questions...I'll stick with one. Were Neanderthals just mutant humans? btw, I've never tried to create life, but then again, I've never had billions of years to work with...rather curious though to see the fossil record progress from very primitive life to more complex though, eh? ![]() |
|
![]() ![]() |
Extreme Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Baowolf - 2010-02-12 11:24 AM Um..playing God is usually not a good thing. Cloning people... not a good thing. Farming bodies for parts, not so good. Harvesting partially born babies' brains for reasearch, not good. Any use of power that causes humans to be slaves, used as body parts, experimented on against their will, inosent folks tortured for the "gains of science" so that rich folks can get transplants and live a few more years at the cost of another person's life.. not good. HEAR HEAR!!! |
![]() ![]() |
Buttercup ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() That was a weirdly written article. Cloning a Neanderthal is unethical and unwarranted. A Neanderthal has no place in today's ecosystem or food chain. No support system, no society to which it belongs. It would be neither animal which people suppose they are entitled to subjugate, nor human which would be welcomed and assimilated into our society. Where would this sentient being find a sense of belonging, shared humanity (Neanderthality?), and place in the world? Won't it want to procreate, as is the biological urge of all living beings? It would be inhuman to create such a being. For what higher purpose can this be justified? How would this benefit the Neanderthal? I see nothing but downside for the Neanderthal. If people want to see what a Neanderthal might look and act like, they need only to tune into some of these reality tv shows. |
![]() ![]() |
Extreme Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Did you win the side bet yet? Looks like we're almost there..... ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Baowolf - 2010-02-12 12:24 PM ... Seriously? This is what you think the theory is? That rocks and water turned magically into people? The early oceans were an organic soup of chemicals, not a bunch of rocks sitting in water. How they became alive may still be a matter of some debate (and if you want to posit that the initial "spark of life" was god breathing life into non-living matter, that's fine. I don't believe that's the case, but I don't know if I can explain it succinently). And that sort of reasoning was what led to (discredited and false) ideas of spontaneous generation. If you leave some meat out on the counter for a few weeks, odds are very good that you will soon notice little worms on it. See? Spontaneous generation of worms from dead meat! And don't try to give some mumbo-jumbo about those being fly larvae - flies have wings, and those things are definitely worm-like. It only takes one occurence of the chemical soup forming some sort of self-generating life to continue the process. Life wants to live. There have been many cataclysmic events destroying large percentages of all life. One of the most interesting (to me) was the evolution of a cyanobacteria roughly 3 billion years ago, that lived in the then-iron rich oceans, and through a (then) novel process of photosynthesis, produced a waste product - oxygen. Oxygen was highly toxic to most life forms; and it caused the iron in the oceans to oxidize, which at the time was an essential element for most life forms. As a result of this significant change in the composition of the atmosphere and oceans, over 90% of all life died. And yet, living things rebounded, evolving adaptations to the environment that made them thrive. The oxygen concentration was in fact even higher than it is today, enabling the growth of ginormous insects that could absorb this oxygen (the reason we don't have 9 foot centipedes anymore is that the O2 levels are about 10% lower than they were in the past - thank god! I freak at the little 3 inch jobbers in my laundry room!) There are some theories of biogenesis that are sort of xenogenic - that some sort of metorite containing a hardy bacterial life form "seeded" the early oceans - but of course that still begs the question of where THAT life started. But it is a lot more complex than "throw some rocks in a jar of water". |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() ChineseDemocracy - 2010-02-12 7:04 PM ... Honestly, those who don't take the time to understand evolution are really doing themselves a disservice. It's like folks back in the 1980's labeling computers as a fad that would surely fade away. ![]() ... Secretly in my heart, that is what I think of the internet... |
|
![]() ![]() |
Iron Donkey![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() gearboy - 2010-02-12 7:56 PM Baowolf - 2010-02-12 12:24 PM ... Seriously? This is what you think the theory is? That rocks and water turned magically into people? The early oceans were an organic soup of chemicals, not a bunch of rocks sitting in water. How they became alive may still be a matter of some debate (and if you want to posit that the initial "spark of life" was god breathing life into non-living matter, that's fine. I don't believe that's the case, but I don't know if I can explain it succinently). And that sort of reasoning was what led to (discredited and false) ideas of spontaneous generation. If you leave some meat out on the counter for a few weeks, odds are very good that you will soon notice little worms on it. See? Spontaneous generation of worms from dead meat! And don't try to give some mumbo-jumbo about those being fly larvae - flies have wings, and those things are definitely worm-like. It only takes one occurence of the chemical soup forming some sort of self-generating life to continue the process. Life wants to live. There have been many cataclysmic events destroying large percentages of all life. One of the most interesting (to me) was the evolution of a cyanobacteria roughly 3 billion years ago, that lived in the then-iron rich oceans, and through a (then) novel process of photosynthesis, produced a waste product - oxygen. Oxygen was highly toxic to most life forms; and it caused the iron in the oceans to oxidize, which at the time was an essential element for most life forms. As a result of this significant change in the composition of the atmosphere and oceans, over 90% of all life died. And yet, living things rebounded, evolving adaptations to the environment that made them thrive. The oxygen concentration was in fact even higher than it is today, enabling the growth of ginormous insects that could absorb this oxygen (the reason we don't have 9 foot centipedes anymore is that the O2 levels are about 10% lower than they were in the past - thank god! I freak at the little 3 inch jobbers in my laundry room!) There are some theories of biogenesis that are sort of xenogenic - that some sort of metorite containing a hardy bacterial life form "seeded" the early oceans - but of course that still begs the question of where THAT life started. But it is a lot more complex than "throw some rocks in a jar of water". Bugs Bunny knows how it all begin, starting around 2:53 of this clip |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() 1stTimeTri - 2010-02-12 9:11 PM Bugs Bunny knows how it all begin, starting around 2:53 of this clip Nice! Here's a Brief History of Pretty Much Everything... |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Alrighty so once we accept that Life was created..(spark of life)...and that that creation is not explained by the "theory" of evolution we at least have a starting point. Once created, that life changed over time to be less basic and more organized to form a world wide echosystem including humans, plants, deseases, etc... by chance? You have more faith in the universe moving from chaos to order than I do. The chances of that all happening without an overseeing hand in the design of the whole thing.... pretty unlikely. Ok so even if I give you that all matter in the universe created itself, that our solar system, galaxy, etc. all got put together just right by chance, that the rocks and water on this planet got hit with lightning and grew humans and all this happened from chaos without God to create or develope, guide etc. it.... that the bible, 10 commandments, etc. are a lovely children's story.... what then? If the survival of the fitest is the only law/rule/religous/scientific/moral/ethical principle opperating in the world. Then I am obliged to kill you and take your car, put a stick in your spokes during an IM and take your woman so that my chances of survival increase. Explain to me how the theory of evolution explains the laws that exist in the world amoung humans and... why given that those laws are in place..... and that slavery is illegal in the United States.... that we would make a clone and enslave that clone for the purposes of poking and proding to increase scientific knowledge or to create clones in general to farm organs for those in power to increase thier quality of life. Survival of the fittes = those in power are obligated to kill, steal, rape and pillage to increase the chances of their genes living on in the world, assuming that evelution includes procreation as a selfmotivated act and not just the survival of the self. I am all ears. Explain how a lack of a creator, a lack of a universal moral code and a free license to do anything, anarchy, works for civilization and in how I should behave in life and in my next IM? |
![]() ![]() |
Buttercup ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Baowolf - 2010-02-12 9:58 PM I am all ears. Explain how a lack of a creator, a lack of a universal moral code and a free license to do anything, anarchy, works for civilization and in how I should behave in life and in my next IM? The answer, for me, is the most obvious one. Humans have managed to develop a universal moral code - the evidence is the imperfect civilization you witness around the world. We have created ethics, values and morals. We continue to evolve socially, as we have for thousands of years. One need only study our ancient and world histories to understand that evolution. |
|