LucidDreamer Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 I believe that creating a Humanzee would be highly unethical. Humans or human hybrids should never be created solely for experimentation. But it would be a very interesting experiment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokele Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Humans or human hybrids should never be created solely for experimentation. But would there be situations in which their creation *would* be ethical, in your eyes? And is it the creation you object to, or the subsequent use? Do you believe those two facets of the question can be truly decoupled; is the act of creation of human hybirds itself wrong or right, or is it always contingent upon purpose? Mokele Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tecoyah Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 I see no ethical problems with manipulation of cellular material....regardless of species. It always amazes me to hear of ethical deliberation of such matters, in a society that loves Mc Donalds, and KFC. If indeed the treatment of animals is in question....look into the way chickens are raised as a food source. If indeed the debate concerns the use of human tissue, this is done on a daily basis in vaccine and burn victim reconstruction....with no issue taken, I fail to see the problem. As far as a Hybrid....interesting concept, but I see little value in the result. And the science gained would likely not outway the uproar created in our current society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucidDreamer Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 And is it the creation you object to, or the subsequent use? Both Man's survival is dependent upon a certain amount of mutual respect for each other and for mankind as a whole. Any society that whishes to produce an environment where its people can be happy and therefore prosper must cherish the notion that each individual is deserving of certain rights. Among these rights must be included freedom and the right to pursue happiness. If we create a hybrid man/chimpanzee we have knowingly created an individual that will likely be retarded, physically repulsive, and ostracized by society. We have purposely created someone that will never know peace and have removed his right to happiness before he is even born. By keeping him constantly under observation so that we might advance science and perform our experiments on him we have taken away his freedom. In this scenario we have completely ignored the rights of the individual and forgotten what truly makes us human. If we did do this experiment then I think that the most telling information we learn will not be about the specifics of the hybridization but rather an important example of how man can commit atrocities by not respecting the rights of each individual. But would there be situations in which their creation *would* be ethical, in your eyes? I can't see creating any hybrid as ethical because all human hybrids would be inferior. Of course I'm not talking about genetic engineering where you could take pieces of genetic code from other animals and potentially create an improved human. When I say hybrid I am thinking of a 50/50 deal. Or if you intended to destroy the fetus before birth then I guess that would be ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokele Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 Quite understandable, though one thing does stick out to me... Man's survival is dependent upon a certain amount of mutual respect for each other and for mankind as a whole. Any society that whishes to produce an environment where its people can be happy and therefore prosper must cherish the notion that each individual is deserving of certain rights. Among these rights must be included freedom and the right to pursue happiness. I have to disagree with this; many human societies have done quite well for themselves while not respecting individual rights of all people. I don't think that makes it right, but merely would point out that such respect for universal individual rights is not actually necessary for survival. To use an example, Rome practiced slavery as well as human rights abuses that make modern people cringe, but they, as a society not only survived and prospered, but created a vast empire that lasted for many centuries. As I said, I'm not saying that makes such things right, merely that they aren't a necessity for survival or social cohesion in all cases. Mokele Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john5746 Posted October 23, 2004 Share Posted October 23, 2004 Against because I think we should not experiement with human material without at least the intent of benefit to the human race and to the 'human' itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucidDreamer Posted October 23, 2004 Share Posted October 23, 2004 I have to disagree with this; many human societies have done quite well for themselves while not respecting individual rights of all people. I don't think that makes it right' date=' but merely would point out that such respect for universal individual rights is not actually necessary for survival. To use an example, Rome practiced slavery as well as human rights abuses that make modern people cringe, but they, as a society not only survived and prospered, but created a vast empire that lasted for many centuries. As I said, I'm not saying that makes such things right, merely that they aren't a necessity for survival or social cohesion in all cases. Mokele[/quote'] I agree that a society can be productive without providing all of its citizens individual rights, but that society will have a large portion of their population that are not happy and who are not prospering. It is also my belief that there is a general correlation between the amount of individual rights and power of its citizens and the level of prosperity that a civilization reaches. The Roman Empire was built on the backs of slaves but those slaves were not as badly treated as say the African American slaves of the United States. There were no doubt many atrocities committed against Roman slaves but in general their slaves were more like the lower working class. The Roman civilization as you know was also a republic for a good portion of its existence and those who actually qualified as citizens enjoyed many rights. It is my belief that the success of both the Greeks and the Romans was due in large part to the individual rights and power that their citizens held. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfrimmdog Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 I think it would be alright as long as it is a chimp egg which there are messign with. If they are using human eggs than what's the point. Unevolvation. Going backwards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 "Unevolution"? Oh please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 "Unevolution"? Oh please. Would that be like the devolution we had in Scotland? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 The closeness of human genes to Chimps is a little a little overblown. Sure there's only a 6% difference, but there's about the same genetic difference between Humans and squirrels, most mammals aren't that diffferent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 The latest estimates are of humans and chimpanzees sharing at 98.5% of DNA, a 1.5% difference. I've no idea what the percentage shared with squirrels is but am prepared to hazard that it is a fair bit less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodhound Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 This is top secret, but there was project to create a hybrid between human and chimps in late 80's in the US of A and its result was GWBush Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake712 Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 lol...so now what was Kerry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzurePhoenix Posted October 29, 2004 Share Posted October 29, 2004 kerry was a combo gaboon-viper / ferret Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokele Posted October 29, 2004 Share Posted October 29, 2004 Nah, Gaboon vipers are pretty, and Kerry's far too ugly to have any of their genes. Though I suspect he'd win a lot of votes if he could exhibit their level of cranial kinesis. "I should be president because I can not only defend America, but also because I can swallow a turkey whole!" Mokele Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzurePhoenix Posted October 29, 2004 Share Posted October 29, 2004 Hah! Mokele, i tip my hat to you sir.... i can't believe i had the poor vision to compare tha slime-mold to the beauty of a gaboon... even a ferret deserves better than such a lowly comparison... aw gee, now i have to apologize to the slime-mold Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted October 31, 2004 Share Posted October 31, 2004 ... aw gee, now i have to apologize to the slime-moldSlime-mold is very introspective. It probably wont have noticed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 There was a program about this (the thread, not slime mould) on TV last night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 The latest estimates are of humans and chimpanzees sharing at 98.5% of DNA' date=' a 1.5% difference. I've no idea what the percentage shared with squirrels is but am prepared to hazard that it is a fair bit less.[/quote'] Ask youself a simple question how many chromosomes does a chimp/man have bearing in mind a count of 1 difference may as well be 1 thousand. sometimes you have to ask questions of what science says. Man has no kinship to chimps,which is fact really.I think if my memory serves me there are about 170 similarities shared between humans and chimps,however there are around 340 differences,so 98.5% is a silly bit of science jargon,when you consider you share about 93% with a goldfish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Man has no kinship to chimps' date='which is fact really.I think if my memory serves me there are about 170 similarities shared between humans and chimps,however there are around 340 differences,so 98.5% is a silly bit of science jargon,when you consider you share about 93% with a goldfish[/quote']I've decided to make two responses to this and let you, Spaceman, decide which one you wish to reply to, if any. Option 1: Well, I've been racking my brains and I just cannot think of a dumber suite of statements posted to this site in the last week. Excuse me, for one brief moment I was going to rein in my amusement and try to be polite to you. I'll no doubt get chastised by the moderators for my immoderate language, but where did you dig up such utter balderdash. 170 similarities. Not 17 or 1700, but 170 (if your memory serves you correctly!) and 340 differences. Wow. Did you know that's exactly double the number of similarities. That can't be coincidence. Is the hand of god at work? And we have no kinship to the chimps! I'm proud of my kinship to the chimps, it's my kinship to you that has me troubled. Option 2: That's an interesting post. Could you clarify a couple of points. (a) When you say 'man has no kinship to chimps', do you mean this as a broad rejection of standard evolutionary doctrine, or are you just re-affirming that we are not descended from chimps, or something else? (b) You didn't make it clear whether the similarities and differences you are speaking of are differences in the DNA, or in anatomy and physiology, or behaviour, or ??? I'm sure you're right about the goldfish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Ophiolite i am deeply offended by your posting,I posted only a general statement to show that i disagreed with a previous poster.Your reply was an uncalled for response that was both personal and insulting. I never offered any factsbut could do so. If you wish to substantiate with fact your stance, on your kinship to chimps.Not just quote 98.5% but show why?,how?and what your facts represent as direct proof.(piltdown man was a hoax you realise it wasnt a real apeman) I did notice your little snide comment associating me with a creationist nutter where did you dig up such utter balderdash. 170 similarities. Not 17 or 1700' date=' but 170 (if your memory serves you correctly!) and 340 differences. Wow. Did you know that's exactly double the number of similarities. [u']That can't be coincidence. Is the hand of god at work[/u]? And we have no kinship to the chimps! I'm proud of my kinship to the chimps, it's my kinship to you that has me troubled. I can quite happily debate with a creationist and evolutionist without prejudice.Generally creationists see science debating flaws in EV/theory as evidence of voiding the whole of evolution theory. Evolutionists interpret whole bible extracts literally(which isnt scientific),so ridiculing for instance "god took a rib from adam and made a women" When any scholar of ancient text know that the bible does not say this at all.Its a simplified translation by ancient persons with no concept of science or how to express it.I could tell you the exact translation of the text if your interested?.But will that make me a creationist in your eyes?. Lets share some facts that back up our stance friend,but can i ask you a question.Do you believe evolution is a fact? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 He's only asked you to explain your post. Fair enough, he could have phrased it a bit better, but if you don't evidence your claims nobody is under any obligation to counter or accept any of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Ophiolite i am deeply offended by your posting,I posted only a general statement to show that i disagreed with a previous poster.Your reply was an uncalled for response that was both personal and insulting...His post was the same thing, he showed he disagreed with a previous poster... um you. Not that I claim to agree with either of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Ophiolite i am deeply offended by your posting……………..Your reply was an uncalled for response that was both personal and insulting. I very deliberately provided two responses and offered you a choice of which one you replied to. My second response does not contain, and certainly was not intended to contain anything offensive. I thought you would be sympathetic to a ‘devil’s advocate’ type approach, for as you say I can quite happily debate with a creationist and evolutionist without prejudice. However, you chose to reply to Option 1 and thus to be offended. I shall try to address each point and question you have raised in your reply. I’ll start at the end: Do you believe evolution is a fact? . Yes. Absolutely (until and unless evidence is forthcoming to overrule the vast body of evidence in favour of it.) To anticipate some follow up questions you might ask: · Clearly not every stage of every evolutionary line has been delineated · There are many details to be worked out as to the exact mechanism by which evolution proceeds · The origin of life is a distinct problem from the evolution of life Evolutionists interpret whole bible extracts literally. . It’s difficult to avoid using the debating technique of dismissive sarcasm. Evolutionists do not interpret the bible at all. Evolutionists, as evolutionists, are indifferent to the bible. You have turned the world on its head. Some creationists interpret the bible literally and in responding to their arguments evolutionists will challenge that literal interpretation. A flawed statement, such as you have made here, causes me to doubt the quality of your other remarks. "god took a rib from adam and made a women"………any scholar of ancient text know that the bible does not say this at all. If you had phrased this as “any scholar… ought to know….” I would have agreed with you completely. Unfortunately, as a scan of a few creationist web sites will reveal, many scholars do make this claim. I could tell you the exact translation of the text if your interested?.But will that make me a creationist in your eyes? Not relevant. Thank you. And, no it doesn’t make you a creationist in my eyes. I’m not even clear why it might. I did notice your little snide comment associating me with a creationist nutter. I hope you did. I spent all of thirty seconds lovingly crafting it. The thing is your statements in your original post were indistinguishable from what I would expect to see from a ‘creationist nutter’, so I think you have to excuse me jumping to a concussion. piltdown man was a hoax you realise it wasnt a real apeman) . I am almost speechless. Nostalgia sure isn’t what it used to be. What possible relevance does Piltdown man have in 2004 to a discussion on evolution? Am I holding a discussion with someone who thinks Piltdown man plays any part in the evidence for evolution, or that it ever played a significant role? If you wish to substantiate with fact your stance, on your kinship to chimps.Not just quote 98.5% but show why?,how?and what your facts represent as direct proof Since libraries of books and research papers have been published on this point, you will appreciate that I shall have to summarise:Anatomical similarities Genetic similarities Biochemical similarities Behavioural similarities Which of these are you disputing? Finally, I do wish you had chosen Response 2, avoided being offended and had answered my simple questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts