Scientists Monkey With Evolution, Produce "Snouted Chicken"

ReiverCorrupter

New member
Jun 4, 2010
629
0
0
scw55 said:
ReiverCorrupter said:
scw55 said:
Mmm, as excited as I am at the idea of prehistoric species coming alive, there's quite a few issues. The animals could never live in the wild as they would distrupt the 'balanced' ecosystem (as balanced as it can be with humans constantly mucking with it).

The only reason I can see for this research is the sake of being able to do it. That's...
Possibley the new animals could be used to research diseases and random stuff, but that means you're breeding animals to experiment on. Depending on the experiments it has the potential to be ethically wrong.

I would prefer if they used this method to ressurect animals that we humans have caused to go extinct due to our own selfish needs. However... I'm not sure how they would do that...

Devolve a close reletive of say the Dodo till the animal they produce is a common ancestor, and prey that animal may in the rare event evolve down the route of the Dodo. Still the animal would never be able to live in a real ecosystem. It would forever be in captivity.

Will be interesting to unravel mysteries of evolution. But I don't want this to happen at the expense of a life of an innocent laboritory manipulated animal.
Wah, wah, wah. Those poor laboratory animals. Life is suffering, get over it. You can't make a velociraptor without hatching a few deformed eggs. A little cruelty is hardly an excuse to not do amazing things. If you don't like it then go become a Jain. They at least have the testicular fortitude to take the philosophy to its logical extreme.
I assume with you hypocritical philosophy on life, it's fine if your family gets brutally maimed because 'life is suffering'. I know life is shit and misreble. Doesn't mean we have to enforce it.
Enforce it for whom? I, sir, wipe my ass with Kant's categorical imperative. Life is suffering because everything is completely impermanent and passes away, but life itself is also the will to power. That is, life is that which is self overcoming: it only exists because it adapts and gains more power. To truly embrace life you have to accept its impermanence and also accept that renouncing power is equivalent to renouncing life. You seem to be the kind of person who hates all of the world wonders because they involved slave labor. Most great acts necessarily involve suffering, but that doesn't mean that we should be oversensitive weaklings and achieve nothing great.

Now, I'm not for torturing animals needlessly, but for the sake of amazing scientific experiments it's perfectly fine, even if those experiments don't have an immediate benefit outside the broadening of our knowledge. Seriously, look up Jainism. It seems right up your alley.
 

Endocrom

New member
Apr 6, 2009
1,242
0
0
Anybody else read "chicken with teeth" and think Ridley's second form in Metroid Other M?

Why not hatch it? It evolved to live in a different atmosphere than todays so it would most likely die anyway. And it's not like anyone would allow it to mate (allowing they are compatible) with modern chickens

Isn't that why prehistoric insects got so big [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SquareCubeLaw]? because the oxygen content of earth was higher?
 

scw55

New member
Nov 18, 2009
1,185
0
0
ReiverCorrupter said:
scw55 said:
ReiverCorrupter said:
scw55 said:
Mmm, as excited as I am at the idea of prehistoric species coming alive, there's quite a few issues. The animals could never live in the wild as they would distrupt the 'balanced' ecosystem (as balanced as it can be with humans constantly mucking with it).

The only reason I can see for this research is the sake of being able to do it. That's...
Possibley the new animals could be used to research diseases and random stuff, but that means you're breeding animals to experiment on. Depending on the experiments it has the potential to be ethically wrong.

I would prefer if they used this method to ressurect animals that we humans have caused to go extinct due to our own selfish needs. However... I'm not sure how they would do that...

Devolve a close reletive of say the Dodo till the animal they produce is a common ancestor, and prey that animal may in the rare event evolve down the route of the Dodo. Still the animal would never be able to live in a real ecosystem. It would forever be in captivity.

Will be interesting to unravel mysteries of evolution. But I don't want this to happen at the expense of a life of an innocent laboritory manipulated animal.
Wah, wah, wah. Those poor laboratory animals. Life is suffering, get over it. You can't make a velociraptor without hatching a few deformed eggs. A little cruelty is hardly an excuse to not do amazing things. If you don't like it then go become a Jain. They at least have the testicular fortitude to take the philosophy to its logical extreme.
I assume with you hypocritical philosophy on life, it's fine if your family gets brutally maimed because 'life is suffering'. I know life is shit and misreble. Doesn't mean we have to enforce it.
Enforce it for whom? I, sir, wipe my ass with Kant's categorical imperative. Life is suffering because everything is completely impermanent and passes away, but life itself is also the will to power. That is, life is that which is self overcoming: it only exists because it adapts and gains more power. To truly embrace life you have to accept its impermanence and also accept that renouncing power is equivalent to renouncing life. You seem to be the kind of person who hates all of the world wonders because they involved slave labor. Most great acts necessarily involve suffering, but that doesn't mean that we should be oversensitive weaklings and achieve nothing great.

Now, I'm not for torturing animals needlessly, but for the sake of amazing scientific experiments it's perfectly fine, even if those experiments don't have an immediate benefit outside the broadening of our knowledge. Seriously, look up Jainism. It seems right up your alley.
It's obvious that empathy is beyond you. Fair enough. Lets leave our discussion at that. We agree that we disagree. Monster.
 
Dec 27, 2010
814
0
0
Cue the arse-holes-with-tight-underwear complaining about the ethics of this.

OT; This is probably the most interesting thing I've heard all week, but that doesn't mean it's true. Give us pictures, when I click on a science thread I want to see something related to the breakthrough, not more hype for Skyrim.
 

Al-Bundy-da-G

New member
Apr 11, 2011
929
0
0
kidd25 said:
novixz said:
Isn't their a general rule of thumb that humans shouldn't play God? Not speaking as a religious fanatic,I just kinda see this going in a bad direction.
don't worry God never mention anything about screwing with DNA so i say we should go full speed ahead, but people were saying that their is some ethics to it, but i haven't fully read the thing.
Yeah besides the people who protest these things don't believe in your fancy schmacy DNA anyway. Remember, "HE BREATHED INTO DUST TO CREATE US". Gotta love christian extremists they're so silly. lol
 

Al-Bundy-da-G

New member
Apr 11, 2011
929
0
0
scw55 said:
ReiverCorrupter said:
It's obvious that empathy is beyond you. Fair enough. Lets leave our discussion at that. We agree that we disagree. Monster.
I don't mean to sound condescending but I think what he's trying to say is that to show empathy to another living creature is to place the value it's existence above your own. It's not necessarily a bad thing it just goes against the natural order that the strong use the weak.

once again sorry for butting in like that.
 

kidd25

New member
Jun 13, 2011
361
0
0
Al-Bundy-da-G said:
kidd25 said:
novixz said:
Isn't their a general rule of thumb that humans shouldn't play God? Not speaking as a religious fanatic,I just kinda see this going in a bad direction.
don't worry God never mention anything about screwing with DNA so i say we should go full speed ahead, but people were saying that their is some ethics to it, but i haven't fully read the thing.
Yeah besides the people who protest these things don't believe in your fancy schmacy DNA anyway. Remember, "HE BREATHED INTO DUST TO CREATE US". Gotta love christian extremists they're so silly. lol
<- is christian, believe in he made us from dust and that DNA is a structure building block of all living things.
 

manic_depressive13

New member
Dec 28, 2008
2,617
0
0
That's so cool. I want this to be true so much, but I'm still a little sceptical at this point. I would love to see pictures. Fuck ethics. I'm a vegetarian, but (un)fortunately the scientist in me is greater than the animal rights activist in me. Morals can go to hell when I'm curious about something.

DINOSAURS NAO.
 

ShadowHand25

New member
Jul 12, 2010
103
0
0
Funny, I just watched "The Lazarus Experiment" episode of Doctor Who yesterday.

The relevence will only be obvious to those who've seen it.
 

ReiverCorrupter

New member
Jun 4, 2010
629
0
0
scw55 said:
ReiverCorrupter said:
scw55 said:
ReiverCorrupter said:
scw55 said:
Mmm, as excited as I am at the idea of prehistoric species coming alive, there's quite a few issues. The animals could never live in the wild as they would distrupt the 'balanced' ecosystem (as balanced as it can be with humans constantly mucking with it).

The only reason I can see for this research is the sake of being able to do it. That's...
Possibley the new animals could be used to research diseases and random stuff, but that means you're breeding animals to experiment on. Depending on the experiments it has the potential to be ethically wrong.

I would prefer if they used this method to ressurect animals that we humans have caused to go extinct due to our own selfish needs. However... I'm not sure how they would do that...

Devolve a close reletive of say the Dodo till the animal they produce is a common ancestor, and prey that animal may in the rare event evolve down the route of the Dodo. Still the animal would never be able to live in a real ecosystem. It would forever be in captivity.

Will be interesting to unravel mysteries of evolution. But I don't want this to happen at the expense of a life of an innocent laboritory manipulated animal.
Wah, wah, wah. Those poor laboratory animals. Life is suffering, get over it. You can't make a velociraptor without hatching a few deformed eggs. A little cruelty is hardly an excuse to not do amazing things. If you don't like it then go become a Jain. They at least have the testicular fortitude to take the philosophy to its logical extreme.
I assume with you hypocritical philosophy on life, it's fine if your family gets brutally maimed because 'life is suffering'. I know life is shit and misreble. Doesn't mean we have to enforce it.
Enforce it for whom? I, sir, wipe my ass with Kant's categorical imperative. Life is suffering because everything is completely impermanent and passes away, but life itself is also the will to power. That is, life is that which is self overcoming: it only exists because it adapts and gains more power. To truly embrace life you have to accept its impermanence and also accept that renouncing power is equivalent to renouncing life. You seem to be the kind of person who hates all of the world wonders because they involved slave labor. Most great acts necessarily involve suffering, but that doesn't mean that we should be oversensitive weaklings and achieve nothing great.

Now, I'm not for torturing animals needlessly, but for the sake of amazing scientific experiments it's perfectly fine, even if those experiments don't have an immediate benefit outside the broadening of our knowledge. Seriously, look up Jainism. It seems right up your alley.
It's obvious that empathy is beyond you. Fair enough. Lets leave our discussion at that. We agree that we disagree. Monster.
I'm all for empathy, it just isn't the end-all, be-all moral imperative. If we can have amazing scientific breakthroughs by causing a little bit of pain to laboratory animals then go for it, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't feel sorry for the animals, it just means that we have to suck it up for the greater cause. We should take every reasonable step we can to be humane to the animals, but that doesn't include abstaining from the experiment altogether.

For instance, I'm not for animal testing for something as superfluous as make-up. But that's because it's for the sheer sake of vanity, which compassion can and should supersede. I'm just not with you when it comes to scientific research. Knowledge is one of the highest, if not the highest of human goals, so it supersedes just about everything, even when the knowledge doesn't have a practical application. That's not to say that it's absolute though, it definitely isn't worth it to torture and slaughter a billion chickens just to find a single protein pathway. But that isn't what they're doing.

I just don't have much patience for people who are fanatical about not causing suffering because it's an impossible and frankly stupid goal that goes against the very nature of existence itself. We should try to have compassion and limit the amount of needless suffering we cause, but we also shouldn't let oversensitivity to suffering limit our intellectual progress.