Scientists Make Human Embryo Clones

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lost in space
Banned
Joined
Jun 7, 2006
Messages
717
Best answers
0
scientistly have recently opened their minds to the possibilities, but ofc these aren't the mainstream ones..

and yea id'e have to go search again to find more info
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
May 13, 2003
Messages
2,904
Best answers
0
What are you waiting for?

Sources, please. :eek:
 
Cunning as Zeus
Banned
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 23, 2003
Messages
6,079
Best answers
0
scientistly have recently opened their minds to the possibilities, but ofc these aren't the mainstream ones..

and yea id'e have to go search again to find more info
Possibilities are not probabilities. It's possible that I'll climb on top of the Empire State building, jump off and survive with very little damage. Is it probable? No. The odds are against me in that situation, but if you were to go through the list of possible eventualities, I'm sure there's at least one where I survive unharmed.
 

MC

New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
May 24, 2003
Messages
3,989
Best answers
0
Location
United States, Florida
my memory on this is really fuzzy, but from what i recall our DNA responds to the energy that creates matter.

And I mean potentials such as, restoring an your body to its healthy state by accessing the DNA with the mind

also, upgrading your brain or mind to a state of new abilities that people would call psychic or w/e...


I'de have to go look again to tell u more
Matter cannot be created nor destroyed, it can only change form.
 
New Member
✔️ HL Verified
Joined
Jan 1, 2008
Messages
221
Best answers
0
Location
Novi Sad, Serbia
Vox Dei said:
I'm know you're talking about us becoming the X-Men at some point, but I'm going to ask anyway:

What do you mean by "implied 'HUGE' potential" and "numerous abilities/potential"?
He's thinking that humans aren't nearly aware what they're capable of. Might not be the stuff we see in movies or comic books, e.g. X-Men, but it's definitely possible that humans aren't aware of their full potential. And I believe that as well. Humans are a race still in learning, ever since we evolved into sentient beings from non-sentient beings, we've only been using a fraction of what we're capable of. Maybe it takes work to discover what we're truly capable of, hell I'm sure it takes a ****load of effort.

But Jinx, isn't it more likely that the very tampering with our DNA will make us unravel that potential, rather than just sitting idly by and waiting for it to happen? Maybe altering our DNA will enhance our white blood cells, making us utterly immune to diseases sweeping down millions of people every day, diseases for which there is no known cure? Maybe we will gain complete immunity from virii and bacteria. That may happen by itself through the process of evolution, but don't you think that DNA alteration is a faster way?

Of course, it could be something completely different. Hell, it may not even be beneficial. After all, such things have known to happen in evolution before. Our appendix is useless as it is now, it's a 'left-over' organ from cavemen, so to speak. Birds, for example, have a functioning appendix, and it allows them to digest certain materials such as calcium carbonate (limestone), which they use to form the husk of their infant's egg. Much like the human woman requiring nutrients from sour foods during pregnancy. The point is that evolution has its down side too, so DNA alteration will probably have the same. The difference between evolution and DNA alteration, though, is that DNA alteration can be applied to only a number of humans, while evolution affects the species as a whole. Further development of DNA alteration will allow us to learn the up and down sides of DNA alteration, and the knowledge of how to apply only the up's, resulting in the human being becoming more perfect in any aspect, more intellegent, stronger, more agile, and that could be passed down to our descendants. Humans will gain the ability to truly, and literally change themselves, for the better, and I see nothing wrong with that.

EDIT: HOLY CRAP! So many people replied while I was typing this.
 
Cunning as Zeus
Banned
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 23, 2003
Messages
6,079
Best answers
0
Not that I know of.
 
New Member
✔️ HL Verified
Joined
Jan 1, 2008
Messages
221
Best answers
0
Location
Novi Sad, Serbia
I may be wrong, but isn't a nuclear reaction the only process we know of to break the laws?
Hmm.....can nuclear fission be considered the destruction of matter? What happens to the electrons, protons and neutrons after the tearing? I'll have to do some research on that.
 
Cunning as Zeus
Banned
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 23, 2003
Messages
6,079
Best answers
0
Nothing is being destroyed. It's being converted.
 

MC

New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
May 24, 2003
Messages
3,989
Best answers
0
Location
United States, Florida
Hmm.....can nuclear fission be considered the destruction of matter? What happens to the electrons, protons and neutrons after the tearing? I'll have to do some research on that.
Nope. Nuclear fission is the splitting of atoms, not the destruction of atoms.
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Oct 4, 2004
Messages
1,572
Best answers
0
Location
Norge
Matter might be "destroyed" in the sense that it ceases to be matter. It will still exist in some form though, like energy or light.
 
New Member
✔️ HL Verified
Joined
Jan 1, 2008
Messages
221
Best answers
0
Location
Novi Sad, Serbia
Energy and matter were once the same thing, in the very, very early stages of the universe.

**** this forum's posting wait >_>
 

MC

New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
May 24, 2003
Messages
3,989
Best answers
0
Location
United States, Florida
Energy and matter were once the same thing, in the very, very early stages of the universe.

**** this forum's posting wait >_>
They aren't the same thing. Energy can be converted into matter and matter can be converted into energy. Planets for example were formed from energy being converted into matter. The Big Bang was an explosion of energy, not matter. However a good portion of that energy was converted into matter which then formed the planets, stars, etcetera.
 
King of the Hello Kitty Fanclub
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Sep 6, 2004
Messages
1,675
Best answers
0
Location
Australia
I'll probably regret this, but Jinx, if they somehow come up with a way to, let's say cure cancer with stem cells. Something they were able to achieve by doing the research with the embryos, then some government body came around and said: "No, using human embryo's is murder, you can control people brains if you put dna enhancing chemicals in their food. We as the government ban the use of stem cells." Would you believe it as some government conspiracy theory to stop the curing of cancer?
 
New Member
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 14, 2003
Messages
3,974
Best answers
0
Nuclear fission, as we know it, and is used in power plants at the moment, involves the splitting of an atomic structure of one element, which would leave you with two other elements, whos atomic structures combined would leave you with the original.

it's like slicing a cake.

the energy required to start the process is relatively minimal, when compared to the energy you get back from it, which in turn, is used partly to fuel the reaction further in future.

this is all fine and fantastic, except that the two elements left over are highly radioactive, and we don't have any further use for them.

if we found a way to fuse them back together, we could create an unending cycle of energy creation. the downside is, the amount of energy created in a fusion reaction, is that of an atomic weapon.... great....

this is all off-topic though:

so lets get back on topic. i think it's amazing what's being done, and i think that if this leads to cures for things which would otherwise plague people, then i'm all for it.

i remember when i went to the south of france, when i was thirteen, to stay with a family for a fortnight. david, the elder son, had some sort of condition, which left him with stubby, useless arms, legs which rarely worked, confined to a wheelchair, his neck was always skewed to one side, and he could only communicate with moans and grunts.

being spoonfed for life, on a gel like substance... that's no way to live, and it certainly isn't his fault. any christian who is against curing that, is a ****ing sadist, in all terms of the word. if they throw the "gods will" argument, then they must conclude that god is in fact, a child playing with a magnifying glass, and we're the ants.

to be honest, anyone even remotely religious, must concede to my earlier point. only god can grant a soul, and therefor, cloning, or creating life, man made, is not the same as a divine spark of creation.

we're simply striving to make life easier on those less fortunate.
 
New Member
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
May 28, 2006
Messages
1,094
Best answers
0
i remember when i went to the south of france, when i was thirteen, to stay with a family for a fortnight. david, the elder son, had some sort of condition, which left him with stubby, useless arms, legs which rarely worked, confined to a wheelchair, his neck was always skewed to one side, and he could only communicate with moans and grunts.

being spoonfed for life, on a gel like substance... that's no way to live, and it certainly isn't his fault. any christian who is against curing that, is a ****ing sadist, in all terms of the word. if they throw the "gods will" argument, then they must conclude that god is in fact, a child playing with a magnifying glass, and we're the ants.

to be honest, anyone even remotely religious, must concede to my earlier point. only god can grant a soul, and therefor, cloning, or creating life, man made, is not the same as a divine spark of creation.

we're simply striving to make life easier on those less fortunate.
I'm not against curing disease. You have to consider that while these diseases are horrible (and I happen to have both an autistic brother, and a cousin who's nearly paralyzed and brain-damaged from falling off a cliff into a riverbed) that you can't say "we must cure this WHATEVER THE COST". The cost, in this case, which is a human life. Curing such a disease using these methods is like knocking out some unsuspecting guy in an alley and harvesting his internal organs so hospitals have more to transplant. You can get stem cells without murder. I never understood why this was even considered. And according to my beliefs, every soul ever to exist, past present or future already exists and is waiting to be given it's chance on Earth.
 
Cunning as Zeus
Banned
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 23, 2003
Messages
6,079
Best answers
0
Except embryos aren't people, so there really is no comparison.
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Oct 4, 2004
Messages
1,572
Best answers
0
Location
Norge
I should stop eating, because eating is murder too.
 
Active Member
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Oct 27, 2004
Messages
2,462
Best answers
0
I should stop eating, because eating is murder too.
Well killing an animal isn't classified as murder. At least not in the United States.

And I would not go as far as to say "human life" is the cost. We are not wasting human life or taking away a potential life (such as abortion). I'd say a crack-addicted woman deciding to have unprotected sex with men to give birth to 3 crack addicted children in the projects of North Philadelphia would be a waste of life. But lab-raised embryos, which only serve one purpose (harvesting), is not destroying human lives.

Killing a living, breathing, person for their organs is taking away life.

Throwing a newborn into a furnace for heat is taking away life.

Cell's absorption is taking away life.

Your believes may conflict with the idea of not associating embryos with real people, but I can not make a meaningful connection.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom