Ah, right... that's something my younger self never thought of... when I was a kid I was really into dinosaurs y'see...ChromaticWolfen said:
Scientists Monkey With Evolution, Produce "Snouted Chicken"
- Thread starter Earnest Cavalli
- Start date
It will taste like chicken,only more leathery,you know,because of the dino skin.orangeapples said:
OT:There's about a million ways this can go horribly wrong,god help us if they revive Hitler and he finds those dinosaurs-Wait,that would be fucking awesome.(Dino D-Day was the best game I played for free on a free Steam Weekend)
Yeah, that does raise a few eyebrows. Though I am willing to consider this article may be accurate. However, like a few others who have posted, I'm not sure I'd say this guy has actually used a chicken embryo to create a dinosaur. It sounds like he mutated a chicken embryo to look more like a reptile. I base this opinion on the fact that he introduced things into the embryo that weren't there before. It doesn't sound to me like he was re-arranging genetic materials that were already there, it sounded like he was introducing materials to create certain physical traits. But I admit my own knowledge of genetic science is very limited; it's probably been since high school since I did any serious reading about it.Calbeck said:
Now, as to the ethics...I think most of the time, especially from the impressions I've gotten from a number of the posts here, when people hear the term "question the ethics" of the science, they immediately think of a bunch of Bible-thumpers who hate anything scientific because it's a challenge to their beliefs. I'm a devout Roman Catholic myself, and I can say that not everything scientific is an affront to Christianity. In fact I think if you did a poll, you'd find a lot of Christians do not find the theory of evolution to be offensive to their beliefs. Personally I just see evolution as another potential way to interpret how God made the life forms we know today. It could have also happened literally as the Bible said, who knows?
I think, however, when people question the ethics of scientific experiments, it's not from the standpoint of "omg, you're challenging my beliefs, you're evil!" I think the question is more about the morality of trying to take control of what has been a natural process, i.e. "in God's Domain," to date and act like man has the knowledge and wisdom to master it. Personally I think there's a pretty wide range of things that, yes, man has the right to put it to use for himself. The Bible does say that God put man's rule over everything on earth, if I remember correctly.
However, there are some abstract processes that exist that man is really too flawed to be able to use responsibly. A perfect example is the argument of cloning. Cloning sentient life forms would do two things; it would suggest that man has the right to create life at a whim through artificial means and it would cheapen the value of life by taking people, who were once valued as individuals who were unique and special, and turning them into things that could be churned out in bulk to be replaced by another, perfect replica whenever one of them dies. The individual person would become unimportant because he/she could always be replaced with a copy banged out by some mass-production machine while the previous "unit" was tossed away with all the care and dignity of a burned out light bulb. That isn't how God made intelligent life to be treated. It's not how any sane person would want to be treated.
That how I figure the whole "ethical science" argument really is. It's not a matter of people refusing to have their beliefs questioned, although I can say it rubs me the wrong way when non-religious people take a scientific development, shove it religious people's faces and go "HA HA HA! Where's your God now?!" I think the argument is more about realizing our own imperfect nature and admitting when the temptation to abuse something would be too great.
I actually saw a documentry were they tried to do this with the embryoes tail instead. It worked but again they couldnt hatch it. To be honest I think its crueler to not hatch the animal at all, as an animals base instinct is to survive and breed.
Also, DINOSAURS!!!
*warning, contains offensive language*
Also, DINOSAURS!!!
*warning, contains offensive language*
Snouts=Pouts
Pouts=Sad
Sad=Angry
Angry=Revolution
Revolution=Evolution
That's why these Evolution experiments should stop in a nutshell.
Pouts=Sad
Sad=Angry
Angry=Revolution
Revolution=Evolution
That's why these Evolution experiments should stop in a nutshell.
Then we'll all be able to have a grand uprising against our new overlord, just like in the movies! Why are people trying to poke holes in this?YOUM@D123 said:
Soooooo, manipulating the crap out of an embryos genes to create dinosaurs... Sounds like a nice idea. Too bad the creatures would likely suffer from horrifically debilitating genetic malfunctions.
It is less ethical to reintroduce an extinct species into an ecosystem. This species could be poorly adapted to the current ecosystem and die out all over again or it could actually damage the ecosystem depending on predation.Jabberwock xeno said:
Okay WHO WROTE THIS?! Earnest Cavalli likes Jeff Goldblum? (chambers round) Time to die, freak of nature!
