• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Next step in evolution?

Status
Not open for further replies.

TwinCrier

Double Blessed and spreading the gospel
Oct 11, 2002
6,069
617
55
Indiana
Visit site
✟32,278.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
In Minnesota, pigs are being born with human blood in their veins.

In Nevada, there are sheep whose livers and hearts are largely human.

In California, mice peer from their cages with human brain cells firing inside their skulls.

These are not outcasts from "The Island of Dr. Moreau," the 1896 novel by H.G. Wells in which a rogue doctor develops creatures that are part animal and part human. They are real creations of real scientists, stretching the boundaries of stem cell research.

Biologists call these hybrid animals chimeras, after the mythical Greek creature with a lion's head, a goat's body and a serpent's tail. They are the products of experiments in which human stem cells were added to developing animal fetuses.

Chimeras are allowing scientists to watch, for the first time, how nascent human cells and organs mature and interact -- not in the cold isolation of laboratory dishes but inside the bodies of living creatures. Some are already revealing deep secrets of human biology and pointing the way toward new medical treatments.

But with no federal guidelines in place, an awkward question hovers above the work: How human must a chimera be before more stringent research rules should kick in?

The National Academy of Sciences, which advises the federal government, has been studying the issue and hopes to make recommendations by February. Yet the range of opinions it has received so far suggests that reaching consensus may be difficult.

During one recent meeting, scientists disagreed on such basic issues as whether it would be unethical for a human embryo to begin its development in an animal's womb, and whether a mouse would be better or worse off with a brain made of human neurons. (article continues at length)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63731-2004Nov19.html
:help:
 

notto

Legend
May 31, 2002
11,130
664
55
Visit site
✟29,869.00
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Not sure how this has anything to do with Evolution (that's 0 for 2 today TwinCrier).

Could you maybe explain to us how the title of your post relates to its content in this post and the other you started about eugenics?

Maybe you could start by giving a simple definition of what you think evolution is and go from there by relating it to the content of the posts.

Otherwise you simply seem to be stating 'Science Bad' and seem to be defining anything to do with biology or genetics as 'evolution' or the 'theory of evolution'. This is not the case.

You also somehow seem to be saying that evolution deals with the morality of human experiments. It does not. As a Christian, I am against eugenics even though I accept evolution. Acceptance of evolution doesn't define my morality and considering that you posted these in a Christian Only forum I can only assume that anybody responding would be the same way.

Your attempts to demonize science or the scientific theory of evolution are rather transparent and quite frankely, based on ignorance of the subject.
 
Upvote 0

TwinCrier

Double Blessed and spreading the gospel
Oct 11, 2002
6,069
617
55
Indiana
Visit site
✟32,278.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You really don't see it? OK, if we create an animal with human dna, human brain cells, at what point does the creature become a different species? Is not evolution the change in genetic composition resulting in the development of new species? Is that not what this is? Yet you ask what this has to do with evolution? This isn't apples and oranges, this is clearly apples and genetically modified apples. Yes, I think this is bad science. I am not demonizing science, unless you truly feel this still constitutes science and not the makings of a science fiction horror minus the fiction.
 
Upvote 0

notto

Legend
May 31, 2002
11,130
664
55
Visit site
✟29,869.00
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
TwinCrier said:
You really don't see it? OK, if we create an animal with human dna, human brain cells, at what point does the creature become a different species? Is not evolution the change in genetic composition resulting in the development of new species? Is that not what this is? Yet you ask what this has to do with evolution? This isn't apples and oranges, this is clearly apples and genetically modified apples. Yes, I think this is bad science. I am not demonizing science, unless you truly feel this still constitutes science and not the makings of a science fiction horror minus the fiction.
Evolution describes how new species arrive due to genetic variation within a population and how those traits can be passed along to offspring.

None of the things you discuss in you OP are related to traits that can be passed on to offspring, or that allow an organism to survive in its environment. None of them have anything to do with genetic manipulation of the sex cells.

The experiments you discuss in the OP don't have anything to do with genetic manipulation or affects on breeding and inheritable traits.

Therefore, they have nothing to do with evolution.

They are biology experiments. Do you know how we get vaccines and insulin? Do those relate to 'evolution' and are they the next step in evolution? How about skin grafts and using pig heart valves in human patients? Are those medical treatments the next step in 'evolution'? I would say no because none of them affect the genetic code or pass anything along to offspring.

Unless these experiments affect the sex cells (sperm and eggs) they will have no affect on offspring and therefore, will not affect anything that evolution discusses.

Again, you are simply saying 'science bad' and calling these things 'evolution' when that is far from the truth.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
If the genetic engineering does not affect the germ line, this is not evolution.

But what about the Harvard oncomouse which has had its germ-line modified to make it reliably susceptible to cancer and is used to research the development of cancer? In theory, at least, is this not evolution?

(Because it is kept as a research animal, it is not affecting the evolution of mice generally. Probably couldn't even if it were released, as it would be a candidate for not being selected.)

In any case, Harvard has applied for patents on both the bio-engineering process, and on the oncomouse and its progeny. In most countries it has received both patents, but Canada recently refused the second patent on the grounds that a mouse, even with genetically modified traits, is not an invention.

And what of plants with germ-line bioengineered traits? Some of them have been commercially distributed, and have spread beyond the fields where they were planted. One story I read from the anti-biotech press was of a farmer in Alberta who had accidentally developed a super-resistant canola. He had planted three different varieties of genetically modified canola and on each had used the relevant company's herbicide to which the canola was resistant.

He expected that he could get rid of any unwanted canola by spraying it with the herbicide from a different company, to which, theoretically, it would not be resistant. Instead, he found he had accidentally produced a canola that was resistent to all three herbicides. This was in spite of surrounding each field of canola with different crops to keep the three original varieties separate.

So, is this not evolution? Neither the farmer, nor the seed companies, produced the super-resistant canola. Nature did.

It is experiences like this that make people resist the commercial distribution of genetically modified wheat.

Bio-engineering in the germ line is inherited and does produce inheritable novel traits. It is still artificial as long as it is isolated and under human control. But if and when human control breaks down---what then? Does it not become part of the history of evolution?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.