Cloning [Archive] - War of the Ring Community

Iarfirithwen

December 31st,2002, 04:59 AM

A quick woffle from me as I don't have time to write out something properly. I agree with therapeutic cloning (stem cell research etc) but not with cloning an entire human individual partially for reasons Eowyn has discussed (i.e., in short I believe tampering with processes of natural selection and the adaptive significance it confers on a species is a problem). Its also a risky business and misconceived by many. Most people are not aware of the large number embryos that were created in the process in attaining Dolly that were not viable. Nor do we know yet the long term consequences for Dolly's heath e.g., is the early onset arthritis in Dolly a result of cloning or natural aging (unfortunately a sample of 1 does not make a scientific expreriment from which we can draw reliable conclusions). (there are also potential problems in cloning DNA from an adult which is no longer quite in the condition it was as an infant - so essentially you are giving an infant DNA of the quality of an adult).
Then there are the widely misconceived ideas of how genes relate to cognitive processes. People forget that genes and the environment interact to produce an individual. Cloning a lost child will not bring that child back because they will not have the memories of the lost child (ignoring here for a moment the complex issues of what it would be like for that child growing up with the expectations of becoming someone else etc and how grieving is an unfortunate but necessary part of life etc). In the same vein cloning Einstein would not necessarily produce a genius who would go on to develop great scientific theories. It might allow for unique features of neural development in his brain (Einsteins brain had on average more synaptic connections (more connection between brain cells) than the average human male brain but it is also possible that could be from environmental experience (i.e., learning can produce an increase in synaptic connections). I'm sure there are others out there that also have similarly developed brains who would not be considered geniuses in the same way...they could quite easily be working at McDonalds or living on the street (no offence intended to these groups ...just trying to run down a stereotype). In many cases genes may predipose you to something but it doesn't necessarily mean you'll end up with it (this can apply to disease aswell e.g., cancer) because of the way genes and environment interact.(I'm ignoring processes involved in physical appearance etc because I'm as familiar with that).

-----
Bonos-Girl not wanting to get into a big argument on animal research (I agree with some but not other forms) I do know of people who against all forms of animal research including medical research that have no idea what goes on or how restricted and controlled it is (atleast in some countries this may not apply to all countries) and are usually quite surprised that its not all as bad as its often made out to be. (Yes I have met people in the past who do conduct medical research which involves the use of animals). Thats not to say that opinion is wrong, nor is that to say there aren't people who are aware and have spent great time debating it and thinking about it from an informed perspective who still don't agree with it. All valid opinions to which everyone is entitled. (Just a personal experience I've met people who have gone from one extreme to another after being exposed to it).

It is also an interesting debate as to whether scientists should investigate something or develop technologies because there are others who might misuse them ... thats a hard call. but a very interesting one to raise. All issues raised in this thread have been really interesting :thumbs: Like were the scientists that first developed and cloned an organism wrong for doing so because there were individuals down the track who might misuse it even if it had the potential to cure disease?
These are definitely all issues I think we should all be thinking about. Keep it coming :)

Ruin's Fate

December 31st,2002, 06:44 PM

I very happy someone had the balls to begin human cloning, what most people don't understand is that through cloning and genetic engineering we can cure just about every disease there is (cancer will be striken from this world, AIDS will be of little concern, organ and blood transplants will become full proof). Albi said it best, "Great spirits have often encountered violent opposition from weak minds."

If you all are so eager to die from some disease; please, by all means feel free, but don't screw it up for the rest of us.

Secondly Adoption is different than cloning your son, the latter is YOUR own gentic material, though he is not your son (not the same one anyways, and caring for your 'own' is hardcoded into you anyways, hence the reason why so many people DON'T adopt when they can have thier own). And yes I hope they clone Einstein, the clone will have the same potential to be as smart as the original. While they're at it they should clone Tolkien and have Chris raise him too. :D

And to the person that said Einstein's brain may have been as such from his enviroment, that was a theory proposed by Lemark around the same time as Darwin was proposing his, it was abandoned by the scientific community almost 200 years ago, I suggest you do the same. Dying my hair green will not make it green over any period of time (which is in essense what you and Lemark were saying, brain structure is an inherantly genotypic process).

Eowyn

January 1st,2003, 03:19 AM

:nono: WRONG! I am a Biologist trust me I know what I'm saying! There are too many risks! If we start cloning organisms then how will evolution take place? not only will it be seen as wrong from a religious point of view but it doesn't help anyone. Dolly the sheep is now suffering from arthritis and who knows what other diseases will occur. the slightest change in DNA can cause a major change in genes. this means protein activity can be lost and so diseases occur that way. there are many mutations that can occur in this way.
I've already said we carry the potential for several fatal diseases. but these allow us to evolve to suit our conditions as explained earlier.

I agree that we should be able to help cure some diseases or at least aid those suffering. but not genetics. cloning a new human will not help save anyone! It's just scientists showing off! trying to be the first so their names are remembered but it proves nothing. just some poor child will live there life being probed and tested to see if everything is normal. they won't get a normal childhood and so will personality wise be completely different to the person they were cloned from.

how can you say that cloning a lost child is the same. It is completely wrong. studies have been carried out between identical twins that show that genetics is not the only thing that affects the characteristics of the child. Nuture is just as important. If not more so! yes there may be a gene which allows people to be more intelligent than others but this is only the case IF the child is encouraged to learn!

Environment does play a role in the persons behaviour. by that no-one means dying your hair, they mean, the interactions between yourself and those around you. children benefit from an early education and having their mother around. there is evidence to support this!

nobody here is thinking in an old fashioned way as you seem to be suggesting. we are not trying to obstruct science we're trying to limit it so that they don't get into situations they shouldn't.

I suppose you'll be one who agrees with designer babies?

Iarfirithwen

January 1st,2003, 06:36 AM

Ruin's Fate, you have lumped all cloning into the one basket which may not be helpful on several levels (esp when it comes to decisions on public policy, the drafting of new laws and the public regulation of research.). Some have in this thread expressed a reluctance for what is most commonly refered to as "reproductive cloning" where a cloned embryo is implanted in a woman's uterus in the hope that it would eventually lead to the birth of a cloned baby. Your slapping down of people personal beliefs against reproductive cloning saying that it will prevent medical developments in the fight against disease was at the least a little hasty, perhaps a tad harsh and not entirely correct. One can argue against reproductive cloning while still making an argument for therapeutic cloning, which is the one that holds the most potential for medical advancement in the fight against disease etc. Now while the technology involved in therapeutic and reproductive cloning is initially the same, its what happens after those first few cells are formed that is crucial. Essentially in so-called therapeutic cloning, the cloned embryo would then be allowed to divide only a few times, after which the embryonic stem cells would be collected and used to grow genetically-matched tissues or specific cell types needed to treat the patient.
Failing to apply the available distinction between therapeutic and reproductive cloning when it comes to public policy is where the real danger lies. There is the risk that if both reproductive cloning and therapeutic cloning are incorrectly lumped into the same basket we could lose both. At this time I believe we could live without reproductive cloning more than we could live without the potential benefits gained from therapeutic cloning.
My personal beliefs against reproductive cloning of a human are at this time based on the current and relative sparse peer-reviewed, published scientific literature from animal studies on the topic (especially longnitudal data). Much more animal work would be required to convince me that, from a simple biological perspective, the idea of reproductive cloning of a human at this time is not in part a little reckless. Biology aside, another concern when it comes to reproductive cloning is that some individuals are for it for misconceived reasons. For instance, little johnny died at aged 8 in a horrific accident and the parents want little johnny back. Cloning little Johnny will not bring little johnny back per se.

Now onto my comments regarding Einstein's brain. Boy have you ever pegged me on the wrong side of the evolutionary fence there lol. I don't believe you'll find that I ever argued for Lemarkim theory.
Originally posted by Ruin's Fate
And to the person that said Einstein's brain may have been as such from his enviroment, that was a theory proposed by Lemark around the same time as Darwin was proposing his, it was abandoned by the scientific community almost 200 years ago, I suggest you do the same. Dying my hair green will not make it green over any period of time (which is in essense what you and Lemark were saying, brain structure is an inherantly genotypic process).
Ah no. Lemark said that not me. Sorry but you're really cracking me up here, and I don't mean to laugh, but you've totally misread what I said and you've responded in, shall we say, an interesting way. I wasn't arguing for the inheritance of acquired charactersistics or anything like that. I was trying to make several points, and admittedly I could've been a little clearer (but as I said at the top I was in a bit of a rush). The main points I was trying to make include that both genes and the environment interact to produce an individual. I'm sorry but learning does modify the brain at a celluar level (that’s how we learn and store information) but I'm not in anyway saying those changes are passed on to your offspring. I'm not quite sure if your aware but the brain is a relatively plastic structure (as it needs to be to enable us to adapt to our environment, and by relative plastic I don't mean entire neural structure will move around but for example the connections between cells can strengthen or weaken). I was also trying to make a point that it might not be entirely correct to expect that the brain of an Einstein clone (assuming that the reproductive technology is perfect, which at this time the evidence indicates it is not) would be identicle to that of the brain of Einstein himself. At a purely hypothetical level even if you were to kill the clone off at the same age and let his brain soak in formalin for 30 years before running the appropriate comparative analysis (and before someone gets the wrong idea I'm speaking at a purely hypothetical level here - I'm not actually promoting the idea of actually doing this and it wouldn't get past any ethics committee anyway :) ). You might clone Einstein but you are not going to get Einstein per se, though you could argue you are essentially getting his twin (assuming no genetic drift in the cloning process). I was trying to say that there are numerous things that can influence brain morphology (in particular synaptic connectivity - take this to mean strength of connection between brain cells). For example, you could argue for exposure to circulating hormones during gestation, nutrition, exposure to environmental toxins such as lead, long-term exposure to stressors etc etc.. The list goes on, though learning was the example that I gave for effecting the strength of connections between neurons. Learning and stimulation produce changes in synaptic connectivity through a variety of cellular mechanisms (which I don't think I need to go into here). Wait let me take another example. Say you take an Einstein clone traumatise him over a period of time prior to killing him off to conduct a postmortem examination of his brain. You would, amongst other things, most likely find pathological changes to the hippocampus (a structure in the brain involved in cognitive function) and these changes which would include a decrease in the number of cells when compared to the brain of a matched individual or even another Einstein clone. It would be incorrect to conclude that said morphological changes where there throughout the life of the clone. [Rather long-term exposure to circulating hormones (such as glucocorticoids) which are released as part of an exaggerated stress response lead to pathological changes in the hippocampus]. In short, what I'm trying to say is that experience modifies the brain.
Take two clones of Einstein, their embryos may start off the same and they may have the potential to do great things but they may not realise that potential. Kill them both off at the age of 76, and on a post-mortem examination you would most likely find not only differences in each of their brains, but also difference when compared against Einstein the original.

Ruin's Fate

January 1st,2003, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by Eowyn nono: WRONG! I am a Biologist trust me I know what I'm saying! There are too many risks! If we start cloning organisms then how will evolution take place?

And I'm a Philosopher, remind be agian why either of these two revelations were relevant to the subject matter? Seocnldy, you being a biologist and all would most certainly know that evolution (natural selection actually) no longer 'works' on humans, ever since we settled down (ie stopped being nomads) the process of evolution through death stopped functioning. This is becuase there is no such thing as survival of the fittest (which is what makes evolution tick), not in human society. We take care of our elderly, our retarted, our (list goes on), so these 'bad' genes are never expunged from the gene pool. In short, no survival of the fittest, no evolution. There will be no x-men, no homo superior (not naturally anyway).

not only will it be seen as wrong from a religious point of view but it doesn't help anyone.

Not true, the Bible is silent on the issue of cloning (of course people are always reading things into the bible, taking phrases out of context and the like), mayhaps by religion you meant the clergy in which case you'd be correct, religiously speaking cloning is wrong, even if the Scriptures do not support (nor disavow) that claim.

Dolly the sheep is now suffering from arthritis and who knows what other diseases will occur. the slightest change in DNA can cause a major change in genes. this means protein activity can be lost and so diseases occur that way. there are many mutations that can occur in this way.
I've already said we carry the potential for several fatal diseases. but these allow us to evolve to suit our conditions as explained earlier.

So you're saying becuase cloning is not yet perfect we should totally abandon it? If scientists thought like that we'd still be in the dark ages waging religous crusades and inquisistions. The fact that cloning technology is imperfect is even more reason to do it, so one day through theory and practice it will become perfect. The axioms 'try and try again' and 'practice makes perfect' come to mind.

I agree that we should be able to help cure some diseases or at least aid those suffering. but not genetics. cloning a new human will not help save anyone! It's just scientists showing off! trying to be the first so their names are remembered but it proves nothing. just some poor child will live there life being probed and tested to see if everything is normal. they won't get a normal childhood and so will personality wise be completely different to the person they were cloned from.

That's an argumentational fallacy called slipery slope argumentation, it has a tendancy to dig the graves of those who use this style of argumentation and here's why.

P1) Retarded children are 'poor' children (as you put it)
P2) Retarted children are usually 'probed' and 'tested'
P3) Retarted children do not live a normal life
C) Therefore, we should not allow retarted children to live

Now take out retarted children and replace it with cloned children, it makes up the brunt of your argument. Next time when presenting an argument make sure its warrant extends to that which you wish to argue in favor for. Now that was an objective counter-argument, here's my subjective one. Who are you to dicatate if another person's life is worth living? Mayhaps you'd like to do me the 'favor' of killing me becuase I only have a p4 1.8ghz computer and not a p4 3.1ghz computer, after all it is very possible that in your eyes (or in the eyes of anyone dicating the value of another's life) not having the latest computer means leading a 'bad' life and one would be better off dead (this again is what I infered from your argument, spare the poor clone children, they will lead horrible lives, better to in a sense 'kill' them by never allowing them to be born that to let them decide the value of thier own life).

how can you say that cloning a lost child is the same.

Simple, I didn't say it. I said people prefer their own genetic material over anothers.

It is completely wrong. studies have been carried out between identical twins that show that genetics is not the only thing that affects the characteristics of the child.

Well of course Nuture is important, but it too has limitations. Take a person with an IQ of 100 (average human male) and force him to take 10 years of quantum physics and he'll never be as good as a person with an IQ of 208 who likes to read quantum physics articles in scientific american.

Nuture is just as important. If not more so!

I'd say nature is more important becuase it effects the affects of nuture. Two different people who have had the same EXACT experiances all thoughout their lives have yet another same exact experiance. They both loose a close loved one, yet they will both most probably react differently to the loss (even though they're nurture aspect is the same). One may be angered, another desparing. Nature effects Nuture, Nurture does not affect Nature. Now this isn't to say Nuture isn't of great importance, it is of course that, but one needs to ask themselves do they believe Nurture is more important becuase of emphircal data (which currently leans towards determanism and not free will) or becuase they wish it so. I know I'm not terribly comfortable with the idea that my genes affect me more than my enviroment, but my discomfort cannot confirm statements such as 'Nuture is just as important. If not more so!'. What I believe is or wish to believe is and what actually is are two seperate things.

yes there may be a gene which allows people to be more intelligent than others but this is only the case IF the child is encouraged to learn!

Again to prove my point, the gentically intelligent child will be inclined to learn without encouragement and even then will gain more in the procces than a child who lacks those certain genes. Again we see Nature affects Nuture and not vice versa.

Environment does play a role in the persons behaviour. by that no-one means dying your hair, they mean, the interactions between yourself and those around you. children benefit from an early education and having their mother around. there is evidence to support this!

Very convincing. Except I am debating HOW much enviroment affects, not if it does at all (which I've already granted as an accepted premise of the debate).

nobody here is thinking in an old fashioned way as you seem to be suggesting. we are not trying to obstruct science we're trying to limit it so that they don't get into situations they shouldn't.

Yet you are not scientists? What would you know on the matter? And how would you go about distancing yourself from people who have had tried in vain to do so before (Catholic Church and Galileo's house arrest would be a pristine example). You have given as of yet no justification as to why YOU yourself (or those on your side of the line) would be so wonderfully suited to regulating science instead of scientists. Here's a simple question. If you could go back in time, would you stop the creation of the atomic bomb? Here's a harder one, would you strangle baby hitler in his cradle?

I suppose you'll be one who agrees with designer babies?

And I suppose you'll be the one who disagrees with legalization of gay marriages.

The morality of both is quite clear and is exactly the same, neither harm another non-consenting human being (one COULD not make the argument that the designer baby would be a harmed non-consenting human being becuase none of us consented to our own births, again leadng to a slippery slope argument), neither violate any logical moral values, just 'religous' ones. Therefore neither should be viewed by any logical person as morally corrupt.

Lady Melody

January 1st,2003, 01:42 PM

Well, I shall give you a rather liberal Muslim's point of view;

No, no, and uh, no. It is against the teachings in the Quran and the fitrah (natural human instincts, etc.) of mankind. Imagine the side effects if this practise should be legalised, the normal human family institution shall be highly questioned, and the female and male role in the species shall be irrelevent. (Come on, men & women have been rolling their eyes at each other because of our differences, with cloning, there's no point in having to live with the irks and quirks of married life, is there? Very tempting, I might add, but I mustn't encourage myself.)

Sexual intercourse will have no purpose anymore, just as some sort of entertainment when we have nothing else to do. (No intended sarcasm or whatever here) Homosexuality/lesbianism will be common in the future. (Not that I've much of a problem with this, but in many cultures this practise is shunned, so forgive me). And another point of which I'd like to add is that, suddenly, when you woke up one morning, you were summoned to see the infant 'you' that was clone a couple of months earlier... Erm... I find this disturbing. I'm unique, me, and nobody else and I love this fact, I don't want another person which my exact genetic makeup but somehow different than I am around all over the place. True, the existing accident of twins (clones actually, both different inside yet same in appearance) gives us the knowledge that genetical makeup doesn't always determine our nature when we're all grown up... but... it did cause confusion, does it not?

Okay... for people with no children... Hey, you blockheaded, selfish, insensitive, no good people! There's all those oprhaned children needing all the love and care they can get and they won't even consider them. Look around us, there's enough famine, diseases and hopelessness in the world already, don't add anymore pain to the world, just help relieve them for once, will ya? Shame on you! The truth is that there's too many humans in this world, and adding more to the list from cloning'll do nobody any good. It'll only mess things up more.

Maybe these things doesn't seem to matter to you... but it does to me.

Ruin's Fate

January 1st,2003, 10:50 PM

Originally posted by Lady Melody Well, I shall give you a rather liberal Muslim's point of view;

No, no, and uh, no. It is against the teachings in the Quran and the fitrah (natural human instincts, etc.) of mankind.

Natural Human Instinst? Pray tell did you mean those natural human instincts that told white planation owners in the deep south that it was ok to intitue slavery, that black people were somehow deseriving of it? And tell me were it these same instincts that allowed Hitler to justfiy to himself that what he was doing was right? Now tell me was it these same instincts that allowed you Muslims to commit mass genocide against the Armenians in 1915. And get this, they weren't even islamic fundamentalists so you can't hide behind a preists frock. They were your average muslims hell bent on pleasing their god.

Imagine the side effects if this practise should be legalised, the normal human family institution shall be highly questioned, and the female and male role in the species shall be irrelevent. (Come on, men & women have been rolling their eyes at each other because of our differences, with cloning, there's no point in having to live with the irks and quirks of married life, is there? Very tempting, I might add, but I mustn't encourage myself.)

Ever heard of male pregnancy? The first male mother is nearing his due date and there are thousands more who wish to follow in his footsteps. The gender roles you're speaking of, here's your last chance to kiss them goodbye and wish them a fair journey to Valinor. And you speak of gender discrimination as it were a good thing. http://www.malepregnancy.com
Happy New Year, welcome to it.

Sexual intercourse will have no purpose anymore, just as some sort of entertainment when we have nothing else to do. (No intended sarcasm or whatever here)

You mean to tell me that you actually believe most tennagers (and the majority of Adults) have sex for any other reason. Again, welcome to 2003. And just what exactly is wrong with having sex for enjoyment, if both are consenting adults, what is the problem? And don't bother with the unnatural theory, I'm a philosopher who unfortunetly had to type a rather large term paper as his final this semester dealing with issues similiar to these. In short, bring up the theory of natural law and I'll post my term paper which utterly and completey destroys it (as well as a few other prejudcies I'm sure you hold dear).

Homosexuality/lesbianism will be common in the future. (Not that I've much of a problem with this, but in many cultures this practise is shunned, so forgive me).

Well that's why they are coined the uncivilized nations of the Earth. And in the US homosexulaity is already common and on the rise. About bloody time I say, I don't see any relevant differance between a gay and straight man that warrants segragated behavior.

And another point of which I'd like to add is that, suddenly, when you woke up one morning, you were summoned to see the infant 'you' that was clone a couple of months earlier... Erm... I find this disturbing. I'm unique, me, and nobody else and I love this fact, I don't want another person which my exact genetic makeup but somehow different than I am around all over the place. True, the existing accident of twins (clones actually, both different inside yet same in appearance) gives us the knowledge that genetical makeup doesn't always determine our nature when we're all grown up... but... it did cause confusion, does it not?

I think you said it best, this is your own personal preferance/problem and is outside the scope of this philosphical/scientific discussion.

Okay... for people with no children... Hey, you blockheaded, selfish, insensitive, no good people! There's all those oprhaned children needing all the love and care they can get and they won't even consider them. Look around us, there's enough famine, diseases and hopelessness in the world already, don't add anymore pain to the world, just help relieve them for once, will ya? Shame on you! The truth is that there's too many humans in this world, and adding more to the list from cloning'll do nobody any good. It'll only mess things up more.

Ok...that was disgusting...gave me the same feeling I got when I read Hitler's manuscripts. 1) News Flash, you're not God, you don't dictate what others choose to do with their lives. 2) Screw the orphaned children of america, they live bloody good lives, what about the poor starving children of 3rd world countries. You just happily let them outside of your equation. 3) I am looking around and all I see are hypocritical preachers who bequeth woe and misery unto the Earth while doing nothing in all thier divine divinity to allievate these harms. Just what have you done that is so rightous that you could possibly hope to use them as justification? And how much is enough? How much is too little? Ever heard of Utilitarianism? And get this, that famine and disease thing you were just bequeathing, genetic engineering and cloning can get rid of them (maybe not right now but once the two practices are allowed to mature in 50 or so years; but of course none of you wish to give them that chance). 4) I'm not obligated to take care of someones orphan because they were killed by thier ex for cheating, and get this, neither are you nor anyone else. 5) I thought we covered this already, YOU are NOT in a position to cast judgement on another's life. There are millions of people who live in your definition of pain, yet they lead wonderfully rich lives that are worth living. Who are you to say their lives should be held foreit becuase of YOUR standards. The monks of budapest would be pristine examples. 6) Shame on You! 7) Your right, there are too many humans on this world, feel free to go on another one of your infamous religious purges.

Maybe these things doesn't seem to matter to you... but it does to me.

*Currently this Atheist is too busy thanking God that sich things do not bother him to respond*

Catz

January 1st,2003, 11:04 PM

Now tell me was it these same instincts that allowed you Muslims to commit mass genocide against the Armenians in 1915. And get this, they weren't even islamic fundamentalists so you can't hide behind a preists frock. They were your average muslims hell bent on pleasing their god.

OK ENOUGH!!!
you have overstepped the bounds there Ruin......making a comment like "you muslims" is the worst kind of uninformed generalisation......yes indeed this incident happened......but i very much doubt that Lady Melody had anything to do with it, any more that you Ruin, are peronally to blame for any of the atrocities performed by your government.....and before you say anything........ALL governments have performed outrageous acts....some are just better at hiding it than others
I WILL NOT tolerate such generalisations against other members.....i have followed this debate with interest, but stick to the issues please......or i will close it
thank you
:catz:

Gorsnak

January 2nd,2003, 01:08 AM

Ruin's Fate, while I don't disagree with the general thrust of your posts, you've overstated your case in some ways. For example, you completely dismiss concerns about the medical safety of reproductive cloning by saying:

So you're saying becuase cloning is not yet perfect we should totally abandon it? If scientists thought like that we'd still be in the dark ages waging religous crusades and inquisistions. The fact that cloning technology is imperfect is even more reason to do it, so one day through theory and practice it will become perfect. The axioms 'try and try again' and 'practice makes perfect' come to mind.

So, tell me, would you volunteer to be a subject in medical experiments which carry with them a substantial probability of causing serious life-long medical problems? Because you are in essence volunteering the people who would result from attempts at reproductive cloning for just that.

I submit that your position here borders on the ridiculous. Attempting to perform reproductive cloning with humans before we can reliably do it with other mammals without causing serious medical conditions in the ensuing offspring is foolhardy, and is essentially condemning people to live in unnecessary pain. The scientific issues here are complex and subtle, and although I freely admit I don't know much about the details, they cannot be dismissed simply by saying we should try and try again. Experimenting with unproven techniques on human subjects raises grave ethical issues that do not disappear when you wave your hands. And, while this might not be cause to give up on cloning, it is cause to learn a good deal before trying it.

As for the wisdom of so-called designer babies, there are several things which should give us cause. First, I don't believe we yet know anywhere near enough to start tinkering with our genetic code. It's playing with fire, and may have far-reaching effects we simply don't understand. We'd need to be much wiser to do that sort of thing without hurting ourselves or our progeny in the long run, I think. Not to mention that there are other sorts of issues, such as sex selection of babies in misogynist cultures, etc. Your comment to the effect that humans are no longer evolving makes me think that you don't have any substantial knowledge of evolutionary biology. (All that is needed for evolution is differential reproduction, and last I checked not everyone has the same number of grandchildren. The mere fact that some conditions that once would have prevented reproduction no longer do so does not entail that evolution has stopped, merely that some factors are no longer selected against. Taking care of elderly has only indirect evolutionary consequences, since elderly are past reproductive age, though they may indirectly increase the prevalence of their genes in subsequent generations by passing wisdom down to their children, etc.) Your contributions to this discussion would be more valuable if you ceased deriding the knowledge of others in areas where your own isn't so hot either, and if you generally accorded the opinions of others a lot more respect.

Religious objections to cloning (of any sort) merit respect, not derision, though it's permissible to question the basis of such objections. It's worth pointing out, though, that the state has no business legislating on the basis of religious mores in any modern democracy.

For the record, I have no problems with reproductive cloning in principle - it is, after all, just the production of a delayed identical twin - though I don't think our technology is to the point where we ought to be trying just yet. Therapeutic cloning deserves very serious study, as it appears to have a lot of promise. Legislation regulating stem cell research and cloning passed by various countries has all struck me as a lot of bureaucratic meddling by politicians who have next to know clue about the subject but who fear public opinion if they do nothing, and it is regrettable that research is being guided by that sort of thinking.

Ruin's Fate

January 2nd,2003, 01:22 AM

Your right, I did generalize didn't I. For that I apologize. I think the true answer to all this lies with the cloned child, when she is old enough she can tell us for herself what she thinks, and we can be spared all this speculation.

Dawnnamira Nerwen

January 2nd,2003, 01:35 AM

First we have to have the evidence that she's actually a clone. Then I'd believe what she feels.

Ruin's Fate

January 2nd,2003, 01:40 AM

*Disregard the above (my post), by the time I finished editing the post the 15 minute time limit ran its course*

Well whether or not she's actually a clone is really a null point, there will come a time (sooner than later I'd wager) when we will have a clone and then we'll be back to sqaure one. Better to solve this today than tommorow.

I feel compelled to respond to the following:

"Religious objections to cloning (of any sort) merit respect, not derision,"

To this I must fully and completely object to as nonsense, in the moral specturm religion is not nessesary, atheists, agnostists, pagans, and so forth are all capable of praciticing morality, both sides of it. Religion can at times cloud that which would have been perfectly clear before. Also understand YOUR objections to cloning stem from the pracitical. Praciticality was never my concern (it's something of an inside joke for philosophers, we deal with the abstract, let others deal with the practicality), so in that sense, I don't disagree nor agree with you. I only present the truth, neither of us are cutting edge sceintists and neither of us are well informed on the matter (the practicality of it I mean), therefore there really is no point in continuing a discussion of its possibilites, just its merits (which is what I was doing, discussing the ethics involved, not the science). Secondly I will defend why I meet religious objections with derision through a tolkien metaphor. I respect both Gondor and Rohan (and all the nations of man in ME) becuase they fought united against Suaron, there is no unification in religion (I'll use Christianity as an example since it's the most divided). Were we to juxtapose Gondor and Rohan as the leading sects of christian teachings (eastern and western) during the war of the ring the two sides would turn on each other instead of marching against Mordor, much like they have been doing in N. Ireland as of late (much like they did in the English Civil War, but I'll stop there, citing the many instances of historical precedance would take too long). So no my friend, don't expect me to respect religious objections, especially when they have no founding in thier own scriptures. I only apologize for placing my malcontent for religion on religious people, I admit sometimes I have trouble seperating the two even though they are two seperate entities.

P.S. Would you care to back up with scientific research (the internet is a vast place, I'm sure you could find an article written by a well respected biologist to support your view) your peculiar view of evolution becuase it most certiantly isn't the one darwin proposed nor is it the one I studied in my AP Bio class nor is it one I've ever seen truly given merit within Scientific American. Evolution in the sense I was thinking (from Homo Habilus to Homo Sapiean) is long dead, maybe you were refering the the english and not scientific defintion, thereby yes we are evoloving (changing), but we are NOT changing into something else. You might want to taste some of your own medicine there, not altogether a pleasant flavor.

Iarfirithwen

January 2nd,2003, 01:45 AM

Unfortunately a sample of one doesn't make for any credible scientific experiment of the sort that any peer-review would recognise. A case study perhaps but there is little way to verify that any potential problems that "Eve" has are due to cloning or not. As has already been mentioned there are grave ethical concerns here: essentially poorly designed and unregulated human experimentation is taking place in the absence of sufficient credible evidence from studies with non-human animals which might indicate the procedure is okay.
I would argue that the available published, peer-reviewed scientific evidence indicates it is way too early to be performing these procedures with humans. Yes, perhaps in the future, but not now.

Ruin's Fate

January 2nd,2003, 01:58 AM

Originally posted by Iarfirithwen
I would argue that the available published, peer-reviewed scientific evidence indicates it is way too early to be performing these procedures with humans. Yes, perhaps in the future..

With that I agree wholeheartedly and I agree that the people who created eve are less than sterling, but I also disagree in the sense that it was becuase of certain regulations posed on real sceintists with the proper technology that these less than sterling people had to be the first. We can't just assume that all scientists out there lack morality, I've met a few biologists who've conducted experimants before on animals and though they hate it and wish there was some other way they regonize that there is not, that what they do is for a greater good. I would not hestiate to trust these people with the issues of cloning...however...you're right...I have no faith in this 'sect' who claims to have created eve. And in truth, the brunt of my arguments have been that cloning itself is not unethical, maybe in it's current state it is but there will come a day when it will not be, but of course religious objections do not take this into account. Cloning will always be wrong under most theistic traditions. So I agree there as well, perhaps in the future, and if placed in the proper hands (MIT, Cambridge), mayhaps even the present.

Gorsnak

January 2nd,2003, 02:15 AM

Me: "Religious objections to cloning (of any sort) merit respect, not derision,"

Ruin's Fate: To this I must fully and completely object to as nonsense, in the moral specturm religion is not nessesary, atheists, agnostists, pagans, and so forth are all capable of praciticing morality, both sides of it. Religion can at times cloud that which would have been perfectly clear before.

I suppose I wasn't nearly clear enough to prevent this misunderstanding. I never meant to suggest that I think that religious objections have some sort of objective merit, or that religion is necessary for morality. I believe neither. One need only understand the Euthyphro to realize this. However, this does not mean that religious views don't merit respect.

Religious views are generally the most vehemently held opinions a person have, and they are often based on intensely personal experiences. It is incredibly presumptuous for any person to dictate what sort of religious views another person should have. One can present present rational arguments attempting to show the merits or lack thereof of specific religious views, but it is not for you or I or anyone else to tell another which conclusions are permissible and which are not. Attempting to dictate the religious views of others is the cause of a very substantial portion of the blood and pain inflicted on humans by each other throughout history, and I for one will have no part in any such activity.

Furthermore, regardless of the fact that I believe all religions to be "false", in the sense that their cosmologies and views on salvation, nirvana, or whatever, are not true, this is no reason to dismiss all things from religious sources. Major religions are for the most part not major religions by accident. Without substantial insight into the human psyche, religions generally fail to capture the imagination and don't last. Those that remain generally contain a great deal of wisdom (barring the few that hang around as a result of historical and political accident), and it's well worth sifting through the dross to find the gold.

Also understand YOUR objections to cloning stem from the pracitical. Praciticality was never my concern (it's something of an inside joke for philosophers, we deal with the abstract, let others deal with the practicality), so in that sense, I don't disagree nor agree with you.

Oh, the irony. An inside joke for philosphers, is it? Gosh, thank you for being so condescending to those of us who don't immediately appear to have studied philosophy. While I am loath to say this, as unlike you I don't wish to boast, I would be rather surprised if you had more degrees (plural) in philosophy than I do. Any question of applied ethics must take practicality into account. Failure to do so leaves one with pretty-sounding principles which don't tell anyone anything about the morality of any particular actions. Not that there's anything wrong with this - normative ethics is to my way of thinking a rather more interesting subject than applied ethics (though not as interesting as metaethics), but the question at hand is one of applied ethics. Dismissing practical concerns is simply failing to address the question being asked.

You'll have to give me a few minutes on the evolution question. While the snippits I stated are precisely what Darwin proposed, perfectly in line with what mainstream biologists believe, and not peculiar at all, I don't carry around references to texts on evolutionary biology in my hip pocket. A bit of googling will likely turn something up, and I'll edit this paragraph in a bit when I find a good summary.

Ruin's Fate

January 2nd,2003, 02:22 AM

I give you no time in evolution. Here is MY response.

Wednesday, February 13, 2002
Chronicle Herald

Evolution is dead; long live evolution

By Brian Lee Crowley

YOU HADN'T heard? Evolution, at least according to some scientific opinion, is dead. Not for everybody, of course. Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection still seems to apply to lemurs and blowfish, flu bugs and baobab trees. But where people are concerned, things are getting a bit murky.

On the one hand, there are those biologists who argued recently before the British Royal Society that evolution is dead, at least for homo sapiens living in Western society. In the West, differences in lifespan and fecundity have narrowed. People with all kinds of genetic endowments are living longer and having children. Once upon a time, disease and poverty would have wiped out many, thus increasing the chances that those who reproduced were people whose genetic makeup was more resistant to illness and other risks.

Now, according to Professor Steve Jones of University College, London, "children's chances of reaching the age of 25 have reached 98 per cent. Nothing is changing. We have reached stagnation." Moreover, we are moving around much more and marrying more frequently outside our ethnic and national groups, mixing genetic endowments that have evolved to meet very different circumstances. Evolution has trouble, according to Dr. Jones, picking its way through this jumble.

Others disagree, pointing to the essentially unpredictable course that natural selection can take over relatively short periods of time. In fact, the fossil record and other sources suggest that the course of evolution is not a smooth, constant one, but is rather "punctuated": There are long periods of stability followed by flowerings of wild genetic experimentation, probably during periods of great stress, such as major climate change.

Neither of these views has it quite right, however. Natural selection has not ceased to operate, although its effects are doubtless more muted than at any time in human history. And the reason that these natural biological processes are receding slowly into the background is that their main role has been superseded by human institutions. As in so many other fields, the things human beings have made are crowding out nature, with results that are, on balance, positive for humanity.

Remember that biological evolution is indifferent to the moral worth of each human being. It is the ultimate collectivist: Individual human beings have no intrinsic value; they can carelessly be swept aside through illness and wretchedness for the greater long-term good of the human race. It matters not if the child who dies from preventable illness might go on to be Mozart or Shakespeare or Pericles, or someone less exalted but no less valuable to their friends and families and colleagues.

The efforts of humanity, and particularly Western civilization, have allowed us to shelter one another from the ravages of natural selection, through education, vaccination, sanitation, redistribution of wealth, labour laws, agricultural innovation, and a whole host of other institutions that have softened the pitiless rigours of the natural world.

Today, multitudes of people survive whom nature would have discarded. They survive to pass on to their offspring and the larger society the fruits of their experience, their thoughts, their hopes and their creativity.

But that doesn't mean that nothing is changing. Natural selection was driven by the constant need of species to adjust to new circumstances: heat, cold, famine, drought, disease, predators, invaders and more. Whatever else characterizes our modern societies, change on a grand scale is a huge constant. But that change is so vast, and happening so quickly, that natural biological selection, which works over millennia, cannot possibly keep up.

That is why the brunt of adjustment to changing circumstances is no longer borne by biological evolution, but rather by the evolution of our human institutions. In the not-so-distant past, something like the AIDS virus would simply have devastated populations across the world over generations, until homo sapiens was purged of people without a genetic resistance to the illness. Instead, within a few short years, we in the West have learned to control, albeit imperfectly, this scourge of humanity. Ultimately, we will learn to defeat it. And it will all be due to the application of human knowledge and energy to mastering our rapidly changing circumstances, through institutions such as research labs, charities, universities, pharmaceutical companies, governments and others.

One can go further: The natural selection that matters in the world today is not of individuals for their genetic endowment, but rather the selection of social institutions for the benefits they confer on us. The long Cold War was such a struggle, a struggle ultimately won by institutions that were built on the foundations of individual freedom and moral worth. Across the globe, similar struggles go on every day, and the institutions that seem to emerge and spread, however fitfully, are those based on values such as the primacy of the individual, universal education, and equality before the law.

Biological evolution isn't over. But increasingly, human intelligence is countering its attempts to weed out the genetically maladapted. And we are the richer for it.
----------------------------

So it appears I was right, Humanity no longer evoloves under Natural Selection but under an Artificial Human created one. It is rather ironic, that you are accusing me of not taking practicality into account. I did not take practicality into account becuase I knew I wasn't particularily well informed on the matter, as you MOST CLEARLY have been shown to be if not more so. Indeed, you would have me consider the practicality of the matter from you when you have failed to keep up with modern scientific thought, that Darwin's Evolution through Natural Selection no longer functions on western human society, instead we have a human created artificial selection, which of course then seems to favor instead of condem cloning. Secondly, the inside joke, it was not meant to be offensive in any way, so if you took it as such it is not my concern. It was merely a justification as to why I did not take practicality into concern, becuase as you said, Ethical Objectivism relies on rules that at times are not always concerned with the practical but the ethical.

And just in case you missed it, Darwin stated Evolution through Natural Selection (the death of bad genetic material), there was no such thing as Artificial Selection during his time (it is something that the has become predominant in westeran humanity in only these past half century. Secondly, Darwin himself was NOT a believer of Puncuated Equalibrainism, but instead of Gradualism so EVEN THERE you will find no sceintific shelter. Might I also add that most scientists believe in Gradualism, where Puncated Evolutionary effect are considered outside the spectrum of natural selection (becuase NS is a procces taking millions of years and cannot cope this massive asteroid impactcs killing off 95% of human life). And one last thing, I do believe you have philosophy degrees, since most philosophers don't concern themselves with UNDERSTANDING the practical. THAT is why they do no take practically into account, not becuase it is irrelevant, but the frontiers of philosophy faces deep scientific issues which require years upon years of study before one can consider themselves well informed in the matter. You my friend, are THE example of why it is not a good idea for philosophers to try to become scientists in the procces of solving a ethical question. Let's face it, were lazy, you could of course convince me otherwise by going and getting a degree in biology.

Lady Melody

January 2nd,2003, 02:29 AM

Ruin's fate, I tried to make my post as unoffending and as liberal as I possibly could to avoid any misunderstandings. I did not point out on which religion is responsible of any actions, but term them generally as the whole humankind. I only put there liberal Muslim because it is what I am, and I'm not ashamed to admit it. I'm a Malaysian, and I wasn't even born yet back in 1915. At that time, my dear friend, my country was busy being enslaved and god only knows (you're the philosopher/whatever, look into those books of yours) what by invaders from abroad, of which we had no defence because we were a friendly and quite naive lot. I am a Malay, a quite liberal lot, mostly free of tribal laws that was more often than not mistaken as Muslim laws. Study my religion thoroughly, my friend. I do, and I'm not a suicidal bomber thank you very much. Reckless teenager, like so many in this world, yes, but for you to mistake me as a terrorist is a direct insult, my friend.

Originally posted by Ruin's Fate
Natural Human Instinst? Pray tell did you mean those natural human instincts that told white planation owners in the deep south that it was ok to intitue slavery, that black people were somehow deseriving of it? And tell me were it these same instincts that allowed Hitler to justfiy to himself that what he was doing was right? Now tell me was it these same instincts that allowed you Muslims to commit mass genocide against the Armenians in 1915. And get this, they weren't even islamic fundamentalists so you can't hide behind a preists frock. They were your average muslims hell bent on pleasing their god.[/i]

Natural human instinct that i meant was; A mother's love to her own child, An argument between siblings that no matter how long, would be reconciled.... those type of things. It's not my fault if you misunderstood it. According to history, those white plantation owners were led to believe of the "White's responsibility to civilize the world." I really don't want to dig up old bones, but you asked for it. On Hitler's aspect, he probably has his own opinions on the matter, he believed on something, or was half-crazed, I don't know. The Jews were badly affected, and I do sympathize them, but what was done was done, I'm a bit watery when I recall history. Hiding behind a priest's frock? Urm... who says I am, I'm a LIBERAL person. Allah didn't ask nobody to kill off everyone else just to please him thanks. Everything in Islam is supposed to lead to goodness, and if you'll be wanting to question why the hell was women supposed to cover themselves from head to foot...let's just say that men are somehow depicted as being horny all the time and since Allah didn't want anyone to even fantasize about the women, we're supposed to cover themselves except the whole human face (forget burkha, not many sane people would agree to it), the hands, and feet (we can't have the women tripping on their dresses all the time can we?)

http://www.malepregnancy.com[/url]
Happy New Year, welcome to it. [/QUOTE}

Really? Whoa... cool... I wonder what my other friends would think of it... this should be interesting. (Sorry, my hobby is antagonizing my religious teacher, and believe me, it's really amusing to provoke her, I said I was liberal, wasn't I?) This is news...

{QUOTE}You mean to tell me that you actually believe most tennagers (and the majority of Adults) have sex for any other reason. Again, welcome to 2003. And just what exactly is wrong with having sex for enjoyment, if both are consenting adults, what is the problem? And don't bother with the unnatural theory, I'm a philosopher who unfortunetly had to type a rather large term paper as his final this semester dealing with issues similiar to these. In short, bring up the theory of natural law and I'll post my term paper which utterly and completey destroys it (as well as a few other prejudcies I'm sure you hold dear).

It's a whole wide world out there, anything is possible. I don't limit myself to "Oh, since people here is like this, this is how many people out there too..." The fact that I'm quite open-minded is remarkable enough considering how I was and am still brought up. No, no problem at all about the fact, except that... well, sue me from being a bit of a dreamer about it, but isn't sexual intercourse supposed to be something to cherish and only do it with your loved one? Then what if a child was conceived out of the 'enjoyment'? I don't know about you guys but I am against the idea of aborting babies, unwanted they may be.

Well that's why they are coined the uncivilized nations of the Earth. And in the US homosexulaity is already common and on the rise. About bloody time I say, I don't see any relevant differance between a gay and straight man that warrants segragated behavior.

I said clearly that some cultures are against it. It's negative or positive aspects are highly questionable and I would not elaborate here.

Ok...that was disgusting...gave me the same feeling I got when I read Hitler's manuscripts. 1) News Flash, you're not God, you don't dictate what others choose to do with their lives. 2) Screw the orphaned children of america, they live bloody good lives, what about the poor starving children of 3rd world countries. You just happily let them outside of your equation. 3) I am looking around and all I see are hypocritical preachers who bequeth woe and misery unto the Earth while doing nothing in all thier divine divinity to allievate these harms. Just what have you done that is so rightous that you could possibly hope to use them as justification? And how much is enough? How much is too little? Ever heard of Utilitarianism? And get this, that famine and disease thing you were just bequeathing, genetic engineering and cloning can get rid of them (maybe not right now but once the two practices are allowed to mature in 50 or so years; but of course none of you wish to give them that chance). 4) I'm not obligated to take care of someones orphan because they were killed by thier ex for cheating, and get this, neither are you nor anyone else. 5) I thought we covered this already, YOU are NOT in a position to cast judgement on another's life. There are millions of people who live in your definition of pain, yet they lead wonderfully rich lives that are worth living. Who are you to say their lives should be held foreit becuase of YOUR standards. The monks of budapest would be pristine examples. 6) Shame on You! 7) Your right, there are too many humans on this world, feel free to go on another one of your infamous religious purges.

There are fake clerics and whatever in the world, my friend. There's also deranged people thinking that they're truly working for God and whatever's in their minds. You, my friend, should be quite able to differenship them, because mine knowledge is mostly of lesser degree in such matters. About the kids, yes, it is their lives to decide, I am mainly rambling around incoherant words after all. I just think that it would help everyone better if the kids have a home, after all. Sure, some people would not atone to it, but that's their business, isn't it? My words are mine to rant on about too you know.

*Currently this Atheist is too busy thanking God that sich things do not bother him to respond*

Oh, so you are an atheist then. A pleasure to know you. I come from a multi-racial country where we couldn't care less about whatever your religion or race is, and that it's all right to be different, it is what you are.

Well, anyways... I went through the Bible Codes 2 recently and I find the contents quite interesting. WW3 is supposed to be around in 2005 and apocalypse in 2006. The Quran is mum about these matters, but us Muslims believed that since all the 'small' predicted stuff over 1500 years ago are happening. It's soon to come. Some 'big' ones has happened too... I guess I don't know what to think of it, but I do find it sad yet true that it is well that a few thousands years of human civilization we're started off by some supernatural beings is to be ended by humans themselves. The greatest enemy, if should these things to be true and come to be, is within ourselves after all.

Gorsnak

January 2nd,2003, 02:39 AM

Well, before you go off proclaiming victory based on a newspaper article written by someone with a journalism degree (if that) not a biology degree, here is the brief version.

Evolution is merely change in the frequency and distribution of genes in a population over time. If people with gene x and gene y are equally distributed in generation n, but people with gene x happen, for whatever reason, to have on average 1.5x more children than people with gene y, then the next generation will have x and y in a 60/40 split rather than an even split, assuming equal mortality in the offspring. It doesn't make any difference whether the reason for the disparity in offspring is due to y-people dying young of some congenital disease, or whether it's because lots of x-people belong to a religion which prohibits birth control. It's evolution either way. Now, unless you are arguing that all genes are being passed on to subsequent human generations in precisely their current distributions (which is obviously false, as one can see by looking at the birth rate data for Europe vs the same data for India), then evolution by definition is still occuring. Obviously we aren't going to turn into homo superior any time in conceivable history, but the transition from habilis to sapiens took several orders of magnitude longer than we've had modern medicine, so that's hardly relevant. What you seem to be thinking is that we are no longer subject to natural selection, which is true in a certain sense - dying prior to reproducing isn't very common - but on the other hand, having fewer children because you live in an advanced industrial society doesn't really strike me as unnatural selection, either.

Ruin's Fate

January 2nd,2003, 02:39 AM

As I said before, I was wrong in replying to you as I did. I apologize again. But there is one part of your post I would like to comment on. Humanity stands but at the edge of a knife in these days, yes we may ensue our own destruction, or we may yet rise to levels unheard of and become our own greatest ally. I suppose that's what makes humanity intrinsicly greater than the the sea, the sun, and the stars. We can't be afraid of the wind.

Yes I know that sounded so completely OOC for me but what can I say, I'm something of a dreamer myself, nice to meet you and too bad we got off on the wrong foot.

Ruin's Fate

January 2nd,2003, 02:46 AM

Originally posted by Gorsnak
[B]Well, before you go off proclaiming victory based on a newspaper article written by someone with a journalism degree (if that) not a biology degree, here is the brief version.

So instead I should believe a WotR post written by someone with philosophy degrees (if that), not a biology degree?

Also, I hate to burst your rather misinformed bubble, but scientific journals are written by scienticts in their respective feilds, NOT by journalists. That's what MAKES Scientific American and other sceintific 'magazines' the premiere source for modern science. But to be considerate, if you would like I could very easily find an article on Sceintific American that also states Evolution is dead? In fact...I will.

Here is that article I promised.

Evolution requires three things: something that copies itself, a mechanism - usually mutation - for making changes in the copies, and an environment sufficiently harsh that not all the copies survive to reproduce successfully themselves.

March 2001 issue

The Future of Human Evolution

Do you remember what people of the future used to look like? When science-fiction movies, television and comic books strained to portray humans of the technologically advanced future, they almost always pictured us with giant bald heads that could house our massive brains. (In a particularly memorable episode of The Outer Limits, the highly evolved David McCallum also had six fingers on each hand, the better for pushing buttons, I guess.) We would become a race of supergeniuses who somehow never invented Rogaine. Of course, there were other possibilities, too. The traveler in H. G. Wells's Time Machine went far into the future and found two divergent species: the brutish Morlocks, who lived in machine-clogged tunnels, and the beautiful, bucolic, tasty Eloi. Apparently, Wells envisioned that only New Yorkers and Swedes would survive atomic war.

These days speculation about how humans might evolve seems fallow. The characters on Star Trek, for example, look as though they could just be actors in Hollywood. Maybe this shift to a closer-to-home future represents a subtle change in the public's unconscious grasp of how evolution works (yes, yes, I know: dream on).

After all, the idea that we would grow bigger brains seems to arise from a view that evolutionary progress flows like a river: we are less hairy and generally have larger brains than our ancient ancestors did, so our descendants should carry these trends to even more of an extreme. But Darwinian evolution calls for circumstances either to favor strongly the big-brained chrome-domes or to weed out drastically us more limited fuzz-heads.

Thanks to modern technology and medicine, people have taken much more control over their differential survival. Bad eyes, weak bones and countless other ills are not the barriers that they once were, happily, a fact that somewhat lessens the reproductive premium on healthful genes. Moreover, in this mobile world, genes from all populations are constantly churning together, which works against distinct subgroups' emerging with new traits. We will certainly continue to evolve naturally in small ways, but our technology may exert the greatest influence. Which means that if we all have big bald heads someday, it's not destiny--it's a fashion statement.

The article “If Humans Were Built to Last,” has fun with these kinds of arguments by asking how humans might look if they had been optimized to lead long, healthy lives. Evolution doesn't have the luxury of selecting for just one such factor, but the authors' analysis of our body's shortcomings in this regard is both entertaining and instructive.

JOHN RENNIE, Editor In Chief
editors@sciam.com
-----------------------------------
May you rest in peace Darwiniam Evolution. Feel free of course to attack the author of this article and his represntive medium just as you did with the other.

Gorsnak

January 2nd,2003, 03:16 AM

Also, I hate to burst your rather misinformed bubble, but scientific journals are written by scienticts in their respective feilds

My apologies. Your story appears to be from the "Chronicle Herald"

Wednesday, February 13, 2002
Chronicle Herald

Evolution is dead; long live evolution

By Brian Lee Crowley

A quick google search reveals that Brian Lee Crowley is " the founding President of AIMS, the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies, Atlantic Canada's public policy think tank." The google search also reveals that your article appeared in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, which is not a scientific journal. Now, if you'll bear with me.

Sites with relevant info by or citing people with Ph.D's
A no-scientific-literacy-required answer from a WSU prof (http://www.wsu.edu/DrUniverse/evol2.html)
I dunno, is Dawkins an authority on evolution? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/scienceshack/backcat/multimedia/auevolution.shtml)
Scientific American actually is a scientific journal (http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?articleID=000DABB8-6FD8-1C72-9EB7809EC588F2D7&catID=3&topicID=3)
A few reasonably reputable looking sources, but not quite biology Ph.D.'s
Paper by a no name biology major (http://www.dooyoo.co.uk/speakers_corner/discussion/evolution/_review/309328/)
Article in a University of Cape Town newspaper citing an archeologist, not a biologist (http://web.uct.ac.za/general/monpaper/2001no17/evolutn.htm)
Talkorigins, a well known anti-creationist site - relevant bit is way down on the page, search for John Wilkins with your browser to find it quickly (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/mar97.html)

Your latest article is pretty much spot on. It says that the sorts of selective forces at work these days are no longer so much related to physical fitness. This doesn't mean we aren't still evolving.

Lady Melody

January 2nd,2003, 03:23 AM

These are very interesting articles...

Ruin's Fate

January 2nd,2003, 03:56 AM

Your first link. "Humans almost certainly are still evolving, says Pat Carter, an evolutionary physiologist here at Washington State University."

What is Evolutionary Psychology?

Simply put: Evolutionary psychology is the combination of two sciences -- evolutionary biology and cognitive psychology. Introducing Evolutionary Psychology, Dylan Evans & Oscar Zarate, Totem Books, New York, 2000

Another explanation:
Evolutionary psychology is the approach of explaining human behavior based on the combination of evolutionary biology, anthropology, cognitive science, and the neurosciences. Evolutionary psychology is not a specific sub field of psychology, such as the study of vision, reasoning, or social behavior. It is a way of thinking about psychology that can be applied to any topic within it. "Evolutionary Psychology and the Emotions," by Leda Cosmides & John Tooby, from the new book, Handbook of Emotions, 2nd Edition, M. Lewis, J.M. Haviland-Jones, Editors, NY, Guilford, 2000.

Another explanation:
Evolutionary psychology is the science that seeks to explain through universal mechanisms of behavior why humans act the way they do (See, Assumptions About EP to Help Guide You). Evolutionary psychology seeks to reconstruct problems that our ancestors faced in their primitive environments, and the problem-solving mechanisms they created to meet those particular challenges. From these reconstructed problem-solving adaptations, the science then attempts to establish the common roots of our ancestral behavior, and how those common behavioral roots are manifested today in the widely scattered cultures of the planet. The goal is to understand human behavior that is universally aimed at the passing of one's genes into the next generation.

As defined by Tooby and Cosmides: "Evolutionary psychology is simply psychology that is informed by the additional knowledge that evolutionary biology has to offer, in the expectation that understanding the process that designed the human mind will advance the discovery of its architecture." "(The Adapted Mind, Barkow, J.H., Cosmides, L., and Tooby, J. (eds) 1992, Oxford University Press, New York)

Taken from http://www.evoyage.com/Whatis.html

Having a degree in EP does not entitle you to sceintific opinions on Evolution. Hell, an EPs job and training follow a completely different awning of pseudo-science. In short, your first link is null and void becuase the author has no credibility.

Second link, doesn't work...at least not for me. So I have no comments.

Third link, absolutely correct for the definition of evolution posed. "Evolution is defined as a change in gene frequencies over time,". Unfortunetly that was not the broader sense of Evolution I was using namely becuase this defintion of evolution is so micro that it has no ethical forebearing the discussion of cloning. Why talk about it when it's not important? Here's the generally accepted defintion of evolution. It is important to note that biological evolution refers to populations and not to individuals and that the changes must be passed on to the next generation. In practice this means that, Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations (spread over MANY generations is the key here). Now I bet both of us can agree on this definition, the problem is even though we are 'evolving' in the sense that we 'change', these changes are arbitrary because the mechanism of Evolution (Natural Selection) no longer functions as it once did becuase Cultural Evolution has destoryed 'Survival of the Fittest' since in western society 98% of the people survive and there is no enviromental stantard for fittest. One could argue intelligence would be an enviromental standard, unfortunely you then have to deal with gambling, basketball players and movie stars, and a whole host of 'fit' people who are dumb and dumber and dumberer. Think of it this way, Evolution is a spalding basketball, a ball that will forever be in play (meaing we will always change) but the player will change. One day it's Larry Bird the next day it's Micheal Jordan (ie, one day it's natural selection and survival of the fittest, the next day is artifical selection and designer babies). I don't, and neither should you, view the ball being played by Larry as the same one being played by Jordan, at least not in a discussion about cloning. And in reality the only reasons it's the same ball is becuase we've given far to 'easy' a defintion to evolution, one this is easily observable but also one that Darwin never intended. He WAS talking about from homo habilus to homo sapien, I very much doubt he gave a **** as to why our species is slowly getting taller or some other arbitrary notion. The reasons that defintion of evolution (without taking into account its mechanism) came into being is becuase Creationists do not disagree with the fact that we slowly change opver time, they disagree that we chang INTO something (the mechanism). So you make this easy defintion in a sense to play on words and make the creationists look like blundering idiots in the hopes that others will accept the connotative meaning of the word and not the denotative one you're proposing. It's an old philosopher's trick, I've used it, I'm sure you've used it, and Peter Singer's existance depends on it (famous contemporay philosopher, I'm sure you've heard of him).

Anyways, I only read the first of 'not PHD links', at the end of that students article he saud something that preetty much destroyed his entire paper.

"While the above reasoning does provide a perfectly plausible theory as to why we may no longer be evolving, there is little hard evidence to prove that we have so much as slowed down, let alone stopped. It is far more likely that the nature of the selection acting upon us has shifted to something less obvious. This possibility is raised by Roger Lewin (1991)(7): ‘Why would social complexity have taken 90,000 years to manifest itself after the origin of anatomically modern humans? One possibility, of course, is that a subtle intellectual evolutionary change may have occurred rather recently in human history, one that does not manifest itself physically."

Evolution operates under the principal of phenotypic expression, without phenotypic expression all changes in an organisms genotype become arbitrary. Again, this 'form' of Evolution is the dumbed down one I was refering to and it has no importance in this discussion, hell it really has no importance anywhere. ALL Evolutionary Mechanism operate under phenotypic expression, to say otherwise is to shoot Larry and Jordan dead before they can take a jumpshot (gradulism) or a slam dunk (punctuated equilibrianism). Sory for the metaphors but I don't wish this post to put others to sleep so I'm trying to make it as lively as possible.

Also, here is another article from SA that supports the broader/common/my view of evolution. http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?articleID=00071863-683B-1C72-9EB7809EC588F2D7&catID=3

Gorsnak

January 2nd,2003, 04:01 AM

Try the second link again. I mangled the url and had to edit it. And I am officially done with this discussion. Clearly I have nothing to contribute to the knowledge of someone who is qualified to dispute the definition of evolution with tenured biologists.

Ruin's Fate

January 2nd,2003, 04:16 AM

I'm not qualified to dispute with biologists on the defintion of evolution, that's why I'm agreeing with them. :p

I'm agreeing with Michael J. Dougherty (SA), A biologist!. I'm disagreeing with Meredith F. Small, associate professor in the anthropology department at Cornell University.

Here's a snibit from my last article.

"A similar question [is evolutoin dead?] was previously answered by Meredith F. Small, associate professor in the anthropology department at Cornell University.

This time we asked Michael J. Dougherty, assistant director and senior staff biologist at Biological Sciences Curriculum Study in Colorado Springs, Colo., to offer his opinion."

How unfortunet for Merideth (NOT a biologist but an anthropologist) that Micheal (A BIOLOGIST, Not an athropologist) does not readily agree with her opinion or defintions. GO Mikey [read his article].

BTW here is an article that describes what anthropology is, http://www.louisville.edu/a-s/anthro/whatis.htm

It Most certainly cannot be considered a science (even though they say they are, but we philosophers and phsycologists CLAIM that our feilds are scientific when in fact they are anything but) becuase it has no place for the Scientific Method. It's more or less a history of humanity, a psuedo-science at best, more in common with Social History than Biology.

And I am officially done with this discussion. Clearly I have nothing to contribute to the knowledge of someone who is qualified to dispute the definition of evolution with tenured biologists. :p

After all it is you and not me who disagrees with the biologist.

Gorsnak

January 2nd,2003, 04:25 AM

Okay, since you insist, I read this latest link of yours. Dr. Dougherty argues concisely for the point that there is no teleology in evolution. What this is supposed to have to do with your view that modern medicine has halted evolution is beyond me, I'm sorry. He's merely pointing out that since there's no direction to evolution, there's no sense in asking whether modern humans are 'evolving' or 'devolving' (since the question implies that evolution does have a direction).

It's the biologists who define evolution as change in gene frequency in a population over time, not me. You're the one saying this isn't adequate, in spite of the fact that it's equivalent to your preferred definition, change from species to species, unless, like you, arbitrary limits are placed on the time frames in question.

Oh, there I go, breaking my promise. Ah well, no one ever accused orcs of being trustworthy.

Lady Melody

January 2nd,2003, 07:23 AM

What I wanna know is how all of these evoulution info is going to influence or affect the whole cloning argument, but since we're on the argument anyways...

No offence, but can someone give me the layman's explaination please? Because the way I understand it, you guys are currently arguing about evoulution, which is mainly a disagreement about whether evoulution would be affected or not by cloning. Of whether would it be on standstill or was evoulution cause by sudden spurts between generations or suchlike matters. Urm... that is in general what I managed to grasp. Anything else that is worth your time to simplify for me?

Iarfirithwen

January 2nd,2003, 08:15 AM

Ruins Fate. You seem to think that by finding a couple of biologist that agree with your position that it makes it correct and therefore the alternative to that position incorrect. I would argue that it indicates that it is part of current scientific debate nothing more. Goodness I can find you the name of atleast one scientist who is willing to argue a link between the size of a certain male appendage and intelligence lol. That by no means makes that correct nor does that mean that all scientist believe it (just trust me on that one ;) ). I suppose the Dawkins article that Gorsnak posted earlier (thanks for that by the way I hve use for that) highlights this very point. Dawkins (himself a Professor in zoology at Oxford, and author of The Selfish Gene) discusses two scientists who take opposing positions on this very issue (has human evolution stopped?).
There's also a delightful quote from an old British comedy ("The Goodies") that springs to mind here which I can't quite remember in entirity but I can get the gist across, Yes 10 out 10 nutritionist agree that eating new low suds-mould is good for your health ……..(aside) but mind you we had to find the right 10 nutritionists :naughty:

Just to balance things up and to give you an idea that not all Evolutionary biologist agree with the premise you have proposed, I offer a couple of quotes that might interest you in seeing another side of the coin (and I'm sure you'll agree the ability to see other perspectives is beneficial)

Quotes from the Stephen Palambi's book "The Evolution Explosion" (2001) [Palambi has held Professorial positions in Evolutionary Biology at Harvard (http://www.oeb.harvard.edu/palumbi/index.html) and has recently moved to Stanford (http://www.stanford.edu/group/Palumbi/), so I think I can use a couple of his quotes here].
This book is quite readible and has a chapter devoted entirely to the question of whether or not humans have stopped evolving. I'm sorry but I really don't have time to summarise his arguments on the genetics of resistance to disease and how this indicates amongst other things according to him, that humans are still evolving but I can give a few quick quotes that might prick your attention and you might decide to follow it up:
"Now we know of a battery of gene sets that determine AIDS resistance in humans and can explain about half the variations in progression time from person to person" (p.227)
"Despite exclamations that human evolution ground to a static halt when our culture became so powerful, a pause to look at the varied conditions of the human community shows that, like any other species, we bow to natural selection. Even with our technology, we still face varied tests of divergence life stress, and when health, habitat or nutrition are poor, then these stresses can kill (p. 228)."
"... genetic evolution in humans hasn't slowed by power to keep selection at bay, but instead, it merely seems slow as it proceeds, when we are in the middle of it." (p.229)
This book should be found in any Library of a university that has a biology department.

There is another quote I just have to throw in given that delightful newspaper article you posted earlier: Its from Stephen Jay Gould's book "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory" (2002), which in addition to being of a size sufficient to function as a door stop (just short of a whopping 1500 pages) Gould makes some very interesting points and the odd one I find delightfully amusing such as this:
"Consider, for example, the lead article in the prestigious "Science Times" section of the New York Times for March 14, 1995, entitled:"Evolution of Humans May at Last Be Faltering." The opening sentence reads:"Natural Evolutionary forces are losing much of their power to shape the human species, scientists say, and the realisation is raising tantalising questions about where humanity will go from here." (Professionals should always become suspicious when we read the universal and anonymous justification, "scientists say.")
These stories begin from the same foundational fallacy and then proceed in an identically errondeous way. They start with the most dangerous of mental traps: a hidden assumption, depicted as self-evident, if recognized at all - namely, a basic definition of evolution as continuous flux….. Reporters therefore assume that this unique feature of human evolutionary history requires a special explanation rooted in mental features that we share with no other speicies. They then generally assume, to complete the cycle of false argument, that human culture, by permitting the survival of marginal people who would perish in the unforgiveing world of raw Darwinian competition, has so relaxed the power of natural selection that evolutionary change (popularly defined as "improvement")can no longer occur in Homo Sapiens. .....(Pardon my cynicism based on some knowledge of the history of such arguments, but the neo-eugenical implications of these claims, however unintended in modern version, cannot be ignored or regarded as just benignly foolish.)
This entire line of fallacious reasoning, with all its burgeoning implications, immediately collapses under a speciational reformulation. Once people understand Homo sapiens as a biological species, not a transitory point of passage in the continuous evolutionary progression of natures finest achievement, the apparent paradox disappears by conceptual transformation nto an expectation of conventional theory." (pp 912-913)

No I'm by no means suggesting that everyone rush out and read this text, noooo (though you're obviusly free to if you wish) but maybe these quotes on the issue at hand and from highly regarded sources might encourage you to read a little further. The chapter in Palambi is well worth a read.

I have to point out that while Scientific American provides delightful articles for giving to students in first year undergraduate classes and others for a bit of light, non technical and generally very interesting reading on hot topics (for instance, I quite like the magazine for its articles on astronomy and quatum physics …out of my area but I have an interest there and the articles are written so they're accessible to people outside the field) and yes the articles are generally written by scientists doing some pretty hot and interesting stuff, but I personally don't consider it as you say "the premiere source for modern science". If you had said say "Science" or "Nature" then yes I'd agree.

As amusing as this thread as been for a distraction over the last few days I fear I must turn my attentions and energies elsewhere. I really come into WOTRn for a bit of fun, not to write out paragraphs of quasi-scientific material of this sort. Goodness I'm trying to avoid that while in here ….
Ruin's Fate please don't take some of the these posts as being personally against you. As Gandalf said in the FOTR (film). I'm not trying to scare you …I'm trying to help you (or something along those lines) Hell I've been impressed in some places on your ability to argue on several points. I think even Grusnak would probably agree with me there. I have personal problem with your argumentative style. It seems you have assumed in several places that the person who is quite happily chatting away in the nice relaxed environment that this forum provides is somehow stupid. You will find that on boards such as this there are the young and the non-quite as young (i.e., pre-teens to 40s atleast here) there are students, lawyers, construction workers, and lots others.To take a case in point, you slapped me down as alledgedly adopting a Lamarckian position by twisting something I had said into something I hadn't and then into a position I did not hold.
…it was abandoned by the scientific community almost 200 years ago, I suggest you do the same. Dying my hair green will not make it green over any period of time (which is in essense what you and Lemark were saying,…
That does not make for a particularly good argumentative style which as a philosopher, you should know. In this particular instance you seemed to mistakingly assume I knew nothing about biology, neuroscience or psychology. A nice gamble but in this instance it did not pay off. Being part of the aforementioned scientific community the aggressive tone and arrogance inherent in your statements comes across as being a little amusing given comments you have posted to other people (The one in the thread "War of the ring?" immediately springs to mind).

These forums are a great way to discuss issues which has been happening to some extent. But they go along much nicer when people don't get narky, arrogant and we a show a bit more respect for one another (and some posts of yours in other threads I have found interesting and very congenial. Even some of your arguments here have been wonderful). A great life skill. Slapping people down, rejecting arguments out of hand just makes people defensive. We are not going to learn much from other people (and we can all learn a lot from others if we choose) under those conditions.

Eowyn

January 2nd,2003, 11:05 PM

Originally posted by Ruin's Fate

P1) Retarded children are 'poor' children (as you put it)
P2) Retarted children are usually 'probed' and 'tested'
P3) Retarted children do not live a normal life
C) Therefore, we should not allow retarted children to live

I never said retarded and certainly did not intend anything of the sort!
I didn't mean 'poor' as in lack of money I referred to it as in 'I feel sorry for them.' This child or at least the first child will not have a normal life! How many children do you know that are tested and studied throughout life. I think it is cruel to obring someone into the world just so that they can be studied. Surely this would bring in issues with human rights?

Daisy Gamgee

January 3rd,2003, 12:53 AM

I'm not going to even attempt arguing the scientific side of things hee, since I only studied biology up to 'A' level but theres a few points I have noticed.

Firstly, Ruin, you mentioned in a post near the :Who are you to dicatate if another person's life is worth living?
You're right, we don't have the right to decide if a life is worth living, therefore what scientist has the right to create a new life?(by means other than sexual reproduction that is) Isn't that, in essence playing Creator, who in my beliefs is God(please bear in mind I am not highly Religious - this view has just come from my nuture). Nobody has a say on who is bought into the world - yes you may argue that the parents do - they can choose not to have children or to abort, but the end result, the baby who pops out after 9 months hasn't been decided by a person, it has been decided by nature.

You have provided a few articles that have said evolution has ended or stopped. Scientific research has shown that body shape, height, etc, has changed from the early 20th century= so within 3 or 4 generation, evolution to some scale has occured. Similarly, some girls menstruate alot earlier than in previous generations - I wouldn't assume that this is because of nuture, but for some reason, that girls genetic make up has changed. (As I have said, I'm not claiming to be a scientist - maybe I am wrong on this view, and a biologist may be able to point that out.)

Again to prove my point, the gentically intelligent child will be inclined to learn without encouragement and even then will gain more in the procces than a child who lacks those certain genes. Again we see Nature affects Nuture and not vice versa.

Education is the vital point in intelligence. Wihout education, the intelligence potential is not known nor realised. Chances are a gentically intelligent child will result from parents who are themselves somewhat intelligent - and generally, intelligent parents, who have been educated, will encourage their child to learn. Why does a child pick up a book? Generally, because it is provided to them. If a child is in an environment where there are no books and no encouragement towards learning, then what would motivate that child to learn? If its required to go out and work at 6 or younger, how can an intelligent child learn? It won't because it doesn't have the resources or the time. So, its my view that nature does not win out over nuture.

Another point you keep making is forgetting the praticalities of science. I think in the instance of cloning, you have to argue the praticilities. These are the most important part. And they need to make sure they have the practicalities sorted and ironed out before they can even begin to attempt to clone (if they should) a human child.