Chimp to Man Ethics

[Matthew777]

There is this question that I have pondered from my junior year of high school. If the only barrier between humans and chimps is genetic mutations, then would it not be possible to genetically engineer a chimp embryo to be human?
Firstly, do you believe that could ever be possible?
And secondly, even if we could, would that be ethical?

 

[mikeynov]

What do you mean genetically engineer a chimp embryo to be human?

We've managed to fertilize a gibbon egg with human sperm before, apparently (didn't know that until gladiatrix posted it).

Not sure anybody's tried to make a humanzee before, though that would sure be interesting.

 

[nvxplorer]

Personally, genetic tinkering with any sentient being is unethical, but that's just my opinion.

 

[Valkhorn]

Well the DNA is only about 1% or less different. But 1% of all the DNA coding is a lot of letters.

 

[Matthew777]

What do you mean genetically engineer a chimp embryo to be human?

Intentionally mutate the genes of a chimp embryo to change it to be human.

 

[Matthew777]

Well the DNA is only about 1% or less different. But 1% of all the DNA coding is a lot of letters.

Couldn't a super computer do it?

 

[Aeothen]

Intentionally mutate the genes of a chimp embryo to change it to be human.

So, let me see if I understand this. You want to know if we can alter chimp DNA to match that of human DNA.

I'm sure its theoretically possible. But it's far too much time and effort for anyone to actually do - what were you hoping to achieve?

 

[Matthew777]

what were you hoping to achieve?

The ultimate evidence for the plasticity of DNA that Darwinian evolution requires.

 

[David Gould]

At this stage, I doubt we have the technology to alter DNA on that scale. But even if we did, I would doubt that anyone would bother. After all, there is no controversy within the scientific field that evolution happens, and doing this would not satisfy IDists, as they would point to the intelligence required in doing it. So no point either way.

I have no problem with the ethical nature of this, though, provided it were be done on an embryo and the resultant child were to be considered a human being and their identity kept secret afterwards to protect them from loonies.

 

[Aeothen]

The ultimate evidence for the plasticity of DNA that Darwinian evolution requires.

DNA is DNA. More or less, it doesn't really care what organism you put it into, it still does the same thing. We've already got lots of evidence to this effect, so your experiment is one that probably won't end up happenning. (Ethical issues aside.)

 

[Matthew777]

After all, there is no controversy within the scientific field that evolution happens

We all believe in evolution as defined as change over time. What is in suspicion by myself and many others is the notion of common ancestry and the efficacy of the Darwinian mechanism.

and doing this would not satisfy IDists, as they would point to the intelligence required in doing it.

It would show that common ancestry could be possible.

 

[Nymphalidae]

There is this question that I have pondered from my junior year of high school. If the only barrier between humans and chimps is genetic mutations, then would it not be possible to genetically engineer a chimp embryo to be human?
Firstly, do you believe that could ever be possible?
And secondly, even if we could, would that be ethical?

DNA is the blueprint for an organism, but the environment influences how and when certain genes are expressed. I'm not just talking about the environment outside, I'm also talking about the cellular environment and the environment inside the mother's womb. It's more complex than simply switching a few nucleotides around.

 

[David Gould]

We all believe in evolution as defined as change over time. What is in suspicion by myself and many others is the notion of common ancestry and the efficacy of the Darwinian mechanism.

Yes, and your views, until you can actually present some evidence to support them that is sufficient for it to be published in a peer reviewed scientific journal, are not scientific.

It would show that common ancestry could be possible.

Not to IDists, it wouldn't. They would simply claim that it is only possible with intelligent intervention, as evidenced by the fact that it took intelligent humans to do it. So the whole exercise is completely pointless.

 

[Matthew777]

Yes, and your views, until you can actually present some evidence to support them that is sufficient for it to be published in a peer reviewed scientific journal, are not scientific.

Science gets pretty fuzzy sometimes when it comes to pre-history.

I have no problem with the ethical nature of this, though, provided it were be done on an embryo and the resultant child were to be considered a human being and their identity kept secret afterwards to protect them from loonies.

One must consider that while it may have the physical body of a human being, the child would not have the personality of one.

 

[David Gould]

Science gets pretty fuzzy sometimes when it comes to pre-history.

Sometimes it may. But not in regard to the overall theory of evolution. So until the ID movement actually has anything scientific to add - peer reviewed scientific journal stuff - I think they should sit back and let actual scientists do actual science. But they are all about politics and religion, so they won't do that.

One must consider that while it may have the physical body of a human being, the child would not have the personality of one.

Are you, from a Christian perspective, saying that God would not place a soul in this child? How do you know?

 

[David Gould]

And admit it: scientists doing this would have zero impact on ID beliefs.

 

[Osiris]

Science gets pretty fuzzy sometimes when it comes to pre-history.

I am kind of getting the notion that you think that if science is wrong, ID must be correct.

 

[Matthew777]

So until the ID movement actually has anything scientific to add - peer reviewed scientific journal stuff - I think they should sit back and let actual scientists do actual science.

I am not an advocate of Intelligent Design. What I would suggest is that given the many holes and unanswered questions of Darwinian theory, the Biblical answer of Genesis 2:7 seems to better fit the available data.

Are you, from a Christian perspective, saying that God would not place a soul in this child? How do you know?

From a Christian perspective, I fear that God would punish us for playing God.
As far as the personality of the child, we may be able to duplicate the physical nature of man but what about the human mind?

 

[David Gould]

I am not an advocate of Intelligent Design. What I would suggest is that given the many holes and unanswered questions of Darwinian theory,

According to scientists, there are no holes and the unanswered questions are slowly being answered - but not be IDists. Rather, actual scientists doing science are getting the job done.

... the Biblical answer of Genesis 2:7 seems to better fit the available data.

It may seem that way to you. However, the scientists who study this area - most of whom, by the way, are Christian - disagree.

From a Christian perspective, I fear that God would punish us by playing God.

So he would punish us by inflicting suffering on this person? Weird view of God you have there ...

As far as the personality of the child, we may be able to duplicate the physical nature of man but what about the human mind?

The mind either arises from the physical or it arises from the spiritual. Either way, there is no problem - we provide the body and the mind arises or is provided by God. Why don't you think God would provide the mind?

 

[Aeothen]

As far as the personality of the child, we may be able to duplicate the physical nature of man but what about the human mind?

Considering that the mind is just made up of neural cells, the structure and positioning of which is determined by the genetic code, why wouldn't our 'humanzee' be as human-like mentally as any other person?