A duck gives birth to a chicken.

Exactly. The language is super confusing because the Good does not necessarily equal the Natural. Or vice versa. Anyways, I wanna see more duck-chicken chimeras because then I might get the leanness of chicken breast with the taste of duck.

BlahISuck said:

Exactly. The language is super confusing because the Good does not necessarily equal the Natural. Or vice versa. Anyways, I wanna see more duck-chicken chimeras because then I might get the leanness of chicken breast with the taste of duck.

Click to expand...

Alright, I'm sold.

We could invent some super magical delicious animal. Like a real turducken

I just hope that we don't end up making more of a mess using this technology. Also they have yet to see if the Chicken born will be able to produce another Chicken...what if it turned out to produce a duck like her father...

Magmaruby and Aquasapphire said:

I just hope that we don't end up making more of a mess using this technology. Also they have yet to see if the Chicken born will be able to produce another Chicken...what if it turned out to produce a duck like her father...

Click to expand...

That's kinda impossible. The chick wasn't born by mating a Rooster with a Duck :p
The chick came to by means of Genetic Implantation, so it's genome is 100% chicken. Unless of course the genome is 50-50 and the chicken's genes are all dominant :/ (Again, impossible. Or at least improbable heh).

The duck embryo was implanted with chicken stem cells. These cells were so "stem" that they not only divided into sex cells, but other cells as well. It's a mix of 100% chicken DNA and 100% duck DNA, making it a chimera. My bad, it's not a chimera. Chimeras develop when you have at least two cell populations from two fertilized eggs. Mosaicism occurs when this happens from a single fertilized egg. This, I guess would be completely different because the "other" genetic material was introduced artificially. But this kind of having two different cell populations at the same time can occur in humans, and is responsible for some of our sex chromosome diseases like Kleinfelters and XYY and stuff we learned in sex ed.

Imagine we were implanted with gorilla stem cells. We might have gorilla sperm XD As well as gorilla muscles/skin or whatever depending on where those stem cells migrate to and how they differentiate.

Magmaruby and Aquasapphire said:

I just hope that we don't end up making more of a mess using this technology. Also they have yet to see if the Chicken born will be able to produce another Chicken...what if it turned out to produce a duck like her father...

Click to expand...

Mm... think of the duck as an incubator. If I understood this correctly, the chicken's well... a chicken

Pretty much. There's no genetic mixing going on in terms of the genomes of the cells. I don't see it as a mess, really. Nothing's a mess as long as you know what's going on and can put it to good use.

Gah!!
Must. Not. Post. Endless. Stream. Of. Bad. Jokes.

Yup... this rates about 4/10 on my weird-****-o-meter.
The only thing i'm worried about with this would be the possibility of scientists completely screwing over the DNA of whatever they test/use this on.
Man is not meant to create life, other then to propagate our own kind.

Scientists won't completely screw over the DNA of whatever they work on because 1. they're scientists, and 2. organisms with screwed up DNA tend to die. The mechanisms of gene modification is so well understood that you can learn it in Grade 11 biology. Compare that to quantum physics which you wouldn't learn in depth until you're in university.

How would they help an extinct species survive once again anyway? Like bringing back Dodos and Mammoths? Don't see them doing anything like that... But maybe repopulating endangered species, like whales and tigers. I don't see how those older species would thrive in today's world.

bradenm said:

How would they help an extinct species survive once again anyway? Like bringing back Dodos and Mammoths? Don't see them doing anything like that... But maybe repopulating endangered species, like whales and tigers. I don't see how those older species would thrive in today's world.

Click to expand...

Natural Reserves... etc.
Not to mention that the Earth itself hasn't changed, just some areas on the surface. If anything, minus pollution, the Earth is much safer now that it was in the past considering all the diseases humans have eradicated.

The dodo died out because of invading species such as humans, dogs, cats and other animals that destroyed their nests. Wiki says they might have already been rare before this happened. Species can go through population crises, and it might just take a strong one to take them out for good. Sometimes a species that's already rare can die out "spontaneously" without any major external changes because it becomes difficult to search for mates and there just isn't enough members left to produce the next generation that survives disease/predation and so on.

imo if we're bringing back things we made extinct (or had a hand in making extinct), I can see how this can be a good thing.

Just don't be bringing back any Sabertooths or Mammoths. That was nature's course - natural selection - and there's no reason to do this.

Also, what kind of health complications would go along with this? Genetic weaknesses? I saw a thing on the Weather Network where French scientists were able to bring a species back from extinction using goats. It lived less than five minutes before it died. Is that not cruel? In order to perfect something like this, a lot of trials like this would have to occur, and I for one think that toying with things like this isn't humane or necessary. We barely have enough room for our own kind here; why are we wanting to introduce more species into a world where their natural habitat may not exist or may be threatened by humans.

It reminds me of people who have kids when they're on welfare. You can't even take care of yourself; why are you damning the child to that kind of impoverished lifestyle? It's not responsible.

I wouldn't say there's nature's course. Nature doesn't have a purpose. Natural processes are mechanistic and they don't pick and choose for an organism's that's better as if they were perfecting them or something, it's simply whatever is best for the time. It's a lot like the entertainment industry in that those who ride the trends (able to adapt) survive and the ones that don't can't. How is humans making something extinct any different from any other factor? To that animal I don't think it makes a difference. Humans using more land is just like climate changing changing their habitat. And humans hunting an animal out of existence is no more different than any other predator. Life is a game of survival, I don't think organisms differentiate between human and "natural" threats so it's misleading to suggest that some animals died out of "natural causes" versus unnatural ones. And all species have their natural habitat threatened by humans. Of course, we should make intelligent guesses and predict how an organism can fit into an ecosystem before we bring it back, but the point is that it's arbitrary to rule something out just because it went extinct. At least we can put them in zoos, or be able to study them in greater detail to understand extinct species and their relationship to living species. We could even set out reserves so we can study behaviour and make comparisons between lions and sabertooth tigers let's say. I think this opportunity would be well appreciated by paleotologists, ecologists, and other biologists.

And speaking of cruelty, mistakes like a goat that lives five minutes are only the first step. Like an engineer that builds a prototype, someone perfecting the science of cloning has to do it at least once, and then make it more effective. Progress only occurs when you do something over and over and learn from your mistakes or what you could be doing better. To give a possibly more morally dubious example, geneticists may knockout a gene from an animal because they have absolutely no idea what it does. Anything could happen to this animal, it might not even be able to form a fetus. But every trial and error takes humanity's collective understanding forwards. Drugs for HIV were tested on animals before humans. In fact all drugs have to go through animal testing before moving on to human testing. All the blockbuster drugs that you see advertised on TV or hear about on the news had to go through animal testing before moving on to clinical trials. Animal cruelty is a fact of life in science, and "cruelty" in nature is simply nature itself.

I'm no PETA member, but I'm not for testing drugs and chemicals on animals either. When God said take the land and everything on it, for it is yours, He didn't mean to mistreat animals; He meant that it is our responsibility to look after them and treat them humanely. Forcing bunnies to painfully endure different types of lotions, etc. on their eyes and face - notably, since they can't produce water to shield them from these effects - is cruel and inhumane, and they are not there to be test subjects as such. The same can be said of the goat or any other type of animal who is bred and dies, or bred and has difficulties, etc. The preliminary testing is horrible and cruel. I do not and will not agree that the "ends justifies the means" in this scenario because there is too much suffering that occurs to arrive at that "end." There has to be a balance - the sacrifice must equal the gain - and I do not believe that it is so in this case.

And for what it's worth, I don't agree with stepping on tent caterpillars or killing spiders. I hate spiders, but I let them outside; why? Because it's not my right to create or kill. Who am I to take something that precious, or to give something that precious, like these scientists are doing? They are giving false life and false hope to species only to rip that life away. Who knows how painful those five minutes were for that animal. I don't know how anybody can be proud of that.

I know.

I come from a godless and scientific background, and it is evident from our posts that our opinions on this do not agree. To me this is the only way for science to advance. 5 minutes leads to 5 days leads to 5 years leads to a viable organism. But much of what we have today is borne upon the backs of dead fruit flies, bunnies, monkeys, and rats. Some of which were designed with a disability in mind to study them.

Nazi scientists performed much human experimentation. As repulsed as I am of what they did, they have nonetheless contributed to our understanding of how the human body works. Some of our understanding is based completely off of what they done. So I guess you could say we're too chicken to build upon their work. Which is what modern scientific ethics is all about I guess.

I don't feel as free as you are as I will be stuck in this moral dilemma for probably my entire life, as will people like me. But we do it not for our own benefit, but for an ideal that everyone else can enjoy the fruits of our labour. At least that's what I feel. I feel that testing on animals is slightly better than testing on humans. And not testing on animals would be giving humans an untested product, which is also unethical. I think it's justified for animals to suffer as long as humans can improve.

I think I begin at the ends justify the means, and constraints kick in from there.

Apparently it's basically now scientifically possible to bring back extinct species, although I doubt much testing has been done. Not to mention, testing and failing is disgusting to me. Why are we cloning things that only last for five minutes just for "tests"? That's putting something through five minutes of pain and misery before it dies a cruel death.

I think the idea that we can bring back extinct species is really cool, but I personally don't think we should. We're not totally sure how these animals would behave and affect the present environment. Not only that, but I don't feel like it's duty or right to start playing god. Something close to 99.9% of species that have ever existed on Earth are now extinct, and we obviously didn't kill them all. They were beat out by other species. The species that are alive today won the gene lottery, you could say. At the end of the day, they beat out everyone else. And that's not our fault, so I don't see why we need to bring an extinct species back to life.

If we're talking about species that humans killed off, I could potentially support that. There's no reason why we made animals like the Dodo bird, Passenger pigeon, or Pyreanean ibex go extinct. It was plain cruelty, honestly.

Yusshin said:

I'm no PETA member, but I'm not for testing drugs and chemicals on animals either. When God said take the land and everything on it, for it is yours, He didn't mean to mistreat animals; He meant that it is our responsibility to look after them and treat them humanely. Forcing bunnies to painfully endure different types of lotions, etc. on their eyes and face - notably, since they can't produce water to shield them from these effects - is cruel and inhumane, and they are not there to be test subjects as such. The same can be said of the goat or any other type of animal who is bred and dies, or bred and has difficulties, etc. The preliminary testing is horrible and cruel. I do not and will not agree that the "ends justifies the means" in this scenario because there is too much suffering that occurs to arrive at that "end." There has to be a balance - the sacrifice must equal the gain - and I do not believe that it is so in this case.

And for what it's worth, I don't agree with stepping on tent caterpillars or killing spiders. I hate spiders, but I let them outside; why? Because it's not my right to create or kill. Who am I to take something that precious, or to give something that precious, like these scientists are doing? They are giving false life and false hope to species only to rip that life away. Who knows how painful those five minutes were for that animal. I don't know how anybody can be proud of that.

Click to expand...

People like you make me sad for the future.

I know that animal testing is bad, but humans won't let themselves be tested, right? If you really want to save animals from testing, find an alternative. Don't just complain, do something about it. Let yourself be tested, or invent a model that can simulate those chemicals working in the body.

This debate is like me saying to desert dwellers, "don't use water other than to drink, because it wastes resources!", and then not finding another alternative to give those people affected a way to wash their clothes and dishes, bathe, or use water. Testing on organisms is an essential way to find out what things are good or not good for living beings, and there will always be a need for something like that. You guys who are like "no animal testing!": do you guys study ways to simulate how living cells respond to chemicals? No? Then stop your protests (that frankly do nothing to stop animal testing) and use that energy rather to help out to find an alternative.

Yusshin said:

five minutes

Click to expand...

Yeah

Also, I have to say that it's either they live for more than five minutes, or they never get born.

So yeah just to clear that up

droomph said:

People like you make me sad for the future.

I know that animal testing is bad, but humans won't let themselves be tested, right? If you really want to save animals from testing, find an alternative. Don't just complain, do something about it. Let yourself be tested, or invent a model that can simulate those chemicals working in the body.

This debate is like me saying to desert dwellers, "don't use water other than to drink, because it wastes resources!", and then not finding another alternative to give those people affected a way to wash their clothes and dishes, bathe, or use water. Testing on organisms is an essential way to find out what things are good or not good for living beings, and there will always be a need for something like that. You guys who are like "no animal testing!": do you guys study ways to simulate how living cells respond to chemicals? No? Then stop your protests (that frankly do nothing to stop animal testing) and use that energy rather to help out to find an alternative.Yeah

Also, I have to say that it's either they live for more than five minutes, or they never get born.

So yeah just to clear that up

Click to expand...

In all honesty, I rarely, if ever, read about scientists finding alternatives to animal testing. I don't have the tools, knowledge or funding to be able to find an alternative, but they sure as heck do; but why would they bother when this is a functional solution that takes less effort and ultimately costs less money?

If I had the resources, I would find an alternative. Asking the public to "find an alternative" is like telling a homeless person to dress better and find a job. That person doesn't have the resources or support to be able to "dress better," thus granting more opportunities to find a job. How can you ask the general public to find an alternative to something that obviously requires special machines, university knowledge, etc.? I can't gene splice at home nor do I have the equipment to control chemicals in a safe environment. Ultimately, and in both cases, it's the system that's broken and has skewed priorities. Rather than researching an alternative to animal testing, they go the easy route, even if maybe an alternative could cost less in the long run. I consider your "find an alternative yourself" argument invalid because it's irrational and unreasonable to ask the public to do something that extreme without funding, knowledge or the necessary equipment. The most we can do is protest, but if that falls on deaf ears, what can you expect more (other than crazy riots or something)?

It's like global warming. They might be slowly approaching change, but they're not going to go all environmentally-friendly overnight. That would cost too much money, and the current system i.e. oil works well for them, so why would they go out of their comfort zone to change it? That's just how it is.

If finding an alternative was important to them, you'd hear about it more often, but frankly they don't care. There are a lot of activists against animal testing who protest the way scientists carry out their experiments, but they still aren't swayed. If you can't change their minds on how important or unethical something is, you can't really expect them to search for alternatives on behalf of the people who do not have the knowledge, funding or equipment to do so themselves. The general public therefore relies on the decisions made by a select group of individuals who abide by their own system of ethics. If you can't alter what they consider unethical treatment, then it's not going to change; not unless some billionaire comes out of nowhere and funds a private operation, but beans if that'll happen.

Yusshin said:

In all honesty, I rarely read about scientists finding alternatives to animal testing. I don't have the tool, knowledge or funding to be able to find an alternative, but they sure as heck do; but why would they bother when this is a functional solution that takes less effort and ultimately costs less money?

If I had the resources, I would find an alternative. Asking the public to "find an alternative" is like telling a homeless person to dress better and find a job. That person doesn't have the resources or support to be able to "dress better," thus granting more opportunities to find a job. How can you ask the general public to find an alternative to something that obviously requires special machines, university knowledge, etc.? I can't gene splice at home nor do I have the equipment to control chemicals in a safe environment. Ultimately, and in both cases, it's the system that's broken and has skewed priorities. Rather than researching an alternative to animal testing, they go the easy route, even if maybe an alternative could cost less in the long run.

It's like global warming. They might be slowly approaching change, but they're not going to go all environmentally-friendly overnight. That would cost too much money, and the current system i.e. oil works well for them, so why would they go out of their comfort zone to change it? That's just how it is.

If finding an alternative was important to them, you'd hear about it more often, but frankly they don't care. There are a lot of activists against animal testing who protest the way scientists carry out their experiments, but they still aren't swayed. If you can't change their minds on how important or unethical something is, you can't really expect them to search for alternatives on behalf of the people who do not have the knowledge, funding or equipment to do so themselves. The general public therefore relies on the decisions made by a select group of individuals who abide by their own system of ethics. If you can't alter what they consider unethical treatment, then it's not going to change; not unless some billionaire comes out of nowhere and funds a private operation, but beans if that'll happen.

Click to expand...

Help out, as in do what you can. Pitch ideas, anything. The minds of many are better than one good mind.