Scientists Outraged By Block on Stem Cell Research

[icyrus]

"We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost..."
- Barack Obama in his inaugural speech.

...WTF happened dude?

A Democrat failed to keep his election promises... surprise, surprise.

He kept his promise, but the president does not control the courts.

 

[porchrat]

Fair enough, however there is no difference between a zygote and embryo, the zygote has the EXACT SAME DNA as the following two cells. The division occurs by 'mitosis' (not meiosis) hence it gives two genetically identical cells (excluding any errors).

If you look at these definitions,
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/embryo
you'll see that there is no strict cut off for zygote/embryo. They are genetically the same. Fertilised egg cell = zygote = divides once embryo (semantics but no difference at all structurally).

The term zygote means fertilised ovum. All subsequent divisions retain the integrity of the DNA. There is no difference between a single cell zygote and an embryo except the two cells.

Doesn't change the erroneous nature of your response.

As I said in the future perhaps try to be a little less pompous and insulting. You are not an all-knowing oracle that we bow down before. You honestly don't know everything as evidenced by your thinking that the first cell containing a total complement of DNA from both the male and female is called an embryo.

As to which field of science I am in before you bother to attack in that way. Biochemistry.

 

[PeterCH]

Do you have some reason to believe that a human embryo is human beyond it's potentiality? Sperm and egg cells are potentially human too; if they are allowed to fulfill their functions they will also become fetus' and then an infant...

Only if they can meet and the sperm cell penetrates the ovum. If you don't unite them, they never can. Think of it like a cake. You have flour, eggs, milk, water, sugar and a hot oven. Before you mix everything together (and mixing occurs inside the fallopian tube of the woman) the ingredients won't become anything. They need to combine inside the oven to become a cake. Same here, once combined giving the right environment - the fallopian tube and then the lining of the uterus your cake/embryo/zygote becomes human - barring errors and external insults. If you now remove the embryo and kill it - well it won't become an fetus. You can also substitute the oven for IVF - in vitro fertilisation and combine the two cells outside the body. Once you have a zygote - since people here want to be pedantic - you're heading to a fetus, newborn, baby, toddler, child, adolescent, adult.

Is there some objective reason why sperm and egg cells become sacrosanct once they become an embryo? Can they experience or reason?

Because the nuclear material combines and what defines you as distinct from your parents is your nuclear material. The cell is alive, has all the machinery to become a new person and has the code to become a new person.

 

[SlinkyMike]

No. I was asking what you understand the difference to mean. What does it mean for you. You have such a strong opinion, hence please share your insights with us.

Ignoring for a second (trust me: I'll get there) your sarcastic and pompous tone, my understanding is as the words describe that embryonic stem cell research is research performed with cells harvested from the embryo as opposed to the umbilical cord or any of the other sites that are used for other kinds of stem cell research.

From Wikipedia:

The first cell (actually a fertilised ovum) is called a zygote. Not an embryo.

Perhaps in the future be a little less pompous and insulting.

That's called a zygote (from the very wiki article you linked to).

I was in fact asking for your understanding on what it is, and you've just demonstrated that you know sweet f-all.

It takes something special to fail the way you often do.

Fair enough, however there is no difference between a zygote and embryo, the zygote has the EXACT SAME DNA as the following two cells. The division occurs by 'mitosis' (not meiosis) hence it gives two genetically identical cells (excluding any errors).

"Fair enough"?? Try: PWNED!

As for the rest, as above and in my other responses to you: zygotes are called zygotes because they are zygotes and not embryos, same for embryos, goats, kittens, spaceships ...and morons.

In a language, things have a name. That name denotes that thing. So 'embryonic' stem cell research is stem cell research performed on stem cells harvested from embryos... sessly dude - my 9 year old gets this WTF is wrong with you?

Quit trying to weaselword out of the dunce cap you wriggeld your way into.

As to which field of science I am in before you bother to attack in that way. Biochemistry.

Double PWNAGE! You beauty!

He kept his promise, but the president does not control the courts.

Good point.

 

[porchrat]

Because the nuclear material combines and what defines you as distinct from your parents is your nuclear material. The cell is alive, has all the machinery to become a new person and has the code to become a new person.

No it doesn't. Doesn't have a spot to embed and develop. That is part of the machinery. Can't ignore it. If it has all the machinery it needs you could leave it in that petri dish and it would become a fully formed human being all on it's own. That isn't going to happen.

Heck forget the petri dish you could flush it down the toilet and it would become a human being.

 

[PeterCH]

Doesn't change the erroneous nature of your response.

Again there is no difference. I just forgot this bit of biology. I never use it. The point is that there is no difference if you look at this site for example,

http://www.biochem.northwestern.edu/holmgren/Glossary/Definitions/Def-E/embryo.html

General: an organism in early stages of development, before hatching from an egg.

Human: A fertilized egg that has begun cell division, often called a pre-embryo (for pre-implantation embryo). An embryo is now defined as a later stage, i.e. at the completion of" the pre-embryonic stage, which is considered to end at about day 14. The term, embryo, is used to describe the early stages of fetal growth, from conception to the eighth week of pregnancy.

As I said in the future perhaps try to be a little less pompous and insulting. You are not an all-knowing oracle that we bow down before. You honestly don't know everything as evidenced by your thinking that the first cell containing a total complement of DNA from both the male and female is called an embryo.

First of all I don't consider myself all-knowing and an oracle and if you look at my replies I don't purposefully ever chastise anyone. Secondly, when people have such strong opinions, I'd like to know why -- they can refuse - this is after all just a lousy casual forum where btw the prevailing opinion from a select group 'atheistically' minded non-scientists is that they are somehow intellectually superior. Hence I pose these questions.

As to which field of science I am in before you bother to attack in that way. Biochemistry.

So how are religious zealots hampering your work?

 

[Nick333]

Because the nuclear material combines and what defines you as distinct from your parents is your nuclear material. The cell is alive, has all the machinery to become a new person and has the code to become a new person.

So you're saying unique embryonic cells have a right to life because of the uniqueness of their DNA? Would you extend the same rights to cloned or engineered cells? I'd like to see if you can construct a purely secular argument against embryonic experimentation to be honest.

 

[SlinkyMike]

Because the nuclear material combines and what defines you as distinct from your parents is your nuclear material. The cell is alive, has all the machinery to become a new person and has the code to become a new person.

No it doesn't. Doesn't have a spot to embed and develop. That is part of the machinery. Can't ignore it. If it has all the machinery it needs you could leave it in that petri dish and it would become a fully formed human being all on it's own. That isn't going to happen.

Heck forget the petri dish you could flush it down the toilet and it would become a human being.

This time in French: PWNAGÉ

 

[PeterCH]

No it doesn't. Doesn't have a spot to embed and develop.

So you're saying that the lining of the uterus becomes integrated into the new person? Which part of the human body originates from the mother than? The skin? belly button? feet? teeth?

Please try to understand this. When the DNA of the sperm and the ovum combine you get a new individual - new DNA - neither mom's, nor dad's. The ovum and the sperm by themselves can never become a new individual, never unless you combine them in vitro - then you are just emulating the natural process.

That is part of the machinery. Can't ignore it. If it has all the machinery it needs you could leave it in that petri dish and it would become a fully formed human being all on it's own. That isn't going to happen.

So is a living mother. If the mother dies, so will her fetus. If the world explodes, the mother will die, so will the fetus. What are you suggesting by introducing other variables?

Take a sperm and put it into the uterus of a sterile woman. It will not develop.
Take an ovum and put it in her uterus, it will not develop.
Take a fertilised egg - it will develop.

Keeping all other variables IDENTICAL, the only difference is the zygote (embryo) - i.e. it is a fertilised egg. An unfertilised egg will never become a new human, fish, dog etc.

Heck forget the petri dish you could flush it down the toilet and it would become a human being.

Take an adult into outer space. Without life support, he will die too. What's your point?

 

[PeterCH]

This time in French: PWNAGÉ

Explain.

 

[Mike Hoxbig]

This is epic - a chiropractor arguing biology with a biochemist.

 

[daveza]

What is the point of all the biology - these are not embryo's which are going to develop.

 

[Nick333]

So you're saying that the lining of the uterus becomes integrated into the new person? Which part of the human body originates from the mother than? The skin? belly button? feet? teeth?

Please try to understand this. When the DNA of the sperm and the ovum combine you get a new individual - new DNA - neither mom's, nor dad's. The ovum and the sperm by themselves can never become a new individual, never unless you combine them in vitro - then you are just emulating the natural process.



So is a living mother. If the mother dies, so will her fetus. If the world explodes, the mother will die, so will the fetus. What are you suggesting by introducing other variables?

Take a sperm and put it into the uterus of a sterile woman. It will not develop.
Take an ovum and put it in her uterus, it will not develop.
Take a fertilised egg - it will develop.

Keeping all other variables IDENTICAL, the only difference is the zygote (embryo) - i.e. it is a fertilised egg. An unfertilised egg will never become a new human, fish, dog etc.




Take an adult into outer space. Without life support, he will die too. What's your point?

Why does unique DNA have the right to a life support system?

 

[boramk]

So essentially, even in vitro-fertilisation is also considered abortion?

 

[porchrat]

Again there is no difference. I just forgot this bit of biology. I never use it. The point is that there is no difference if you look at this site for example,

http://www.biochem.northwestern.edu/holmgren/Glossary/Definitions/Def-E/embryo.html

There is a difference. One is unicellular the other is multicellular.

Differences are the reason we call things by different names. If they weren't different we would give them the same name

First of all I don't consider myself all-knowing and an oracle and if you look at my replies I don't purposefully ever chastise anyone. Secondly, when people have such strong opinions, I'd like to know why -- they can refuse - this is after all just a lousy casual forum where btw the prevailing opinion from a select group 'atheistically' minded non-scientists is that they are somehow intellectually superior. Hence I pose these questions.

Oh so the whole condescending "Google too difficult?" thing was not written on purpose?

I'm not really a statistician but I imagine the odds of this perfectly coherent sentence complete with correct spelling being formed purely by chance and not on purpose are pretty slim.

So how are religious zealots hampering your work?

Did I say they were? Could you point this post out to me?

 

[PeterCH]

So you're saying unique embryonic cells have a right to life because of the uniqueness of their DNA? Would you extend the same rights to cloned or engineered cells? I'd like to see if you can construct a purely secular argument against embryonic experimentation to be honest.

I've been doing that. Have you seen me mention God anywhere?

First of all, how do you define a new human being? What is it? Is it a baby? A fetus? An adolescent? An adult?

One could say that brain activity could be it. But not many of you remember your in utero days and the brain still develops after birth. Heck, we develop our brains till into adolescence. Abstraction is one of the last things to develop. Preteen kids don't have that even. So when is is it ok to experiment on other people? The cut offs here are rather dodgy. You could experiment on 1 year old babies too. Or toddlers.

Remember, the Nazis did not see Jews as human, so they experimented on them. If the whole Nazi society decided to remove the HUMAN tag from Jews then what the Nazis were doing was actually OK from their moral POV. They were furthering science. They should have used more anesthetic though but beyond 'cruelty to animals' they would have done no wrong. They did wrong because no matter how many Nazi scientists said that Jews were not human, they are.
Hence killing them was murder. An embryo is a new human. If you kill it, it won't become a fetus, baby, child and then an adult. If you leave it without interfering with it, it will go down that route (barring mistakes).

 

[porchrat]

So you're saying that the lining of the uterus becomes integrated into the new person?

No I'm saying without the uterus lining (machinery) there will be no human. Therefore the embryo does not contain all the machinery required to develop into a human.

The DNA would be the part of your previous post dealing with "code". Notice I didn't comment on that.

 

[PeterCH]

There is a difference. Once is unicellular the other is multicellular.

What is the difference between the first mitotic division and subequent mitotic divisions?

Oh so the whole condescending "Google too difficult?" thing was not written on purpose?

No. Some here still fail to grasp the difference between a cell with new DNA and two cells with 'half DNAs' (gametes).

Did I say they were? Could you point this post out to me?

Did I say you did? I'm asking now. People here say religion interferes in science, so if you're a scientist, provide me with some examples in your work.

 

[bradrap]

In a sense this may be a bit off-topic, but...

One of my favourite bands, Dream Theater's song The Great Debate http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4z6vpiXQJNA

You'll have to listen to at least the beginning and the end for it to make any sense ;D

 

[SlinkyMike]

Explain.

Oh, you have been so epically owned in this thread that mere English seems (to me at least) not to capture the true vastness of the pwnage so I have opted for French, I'm thinking Greek might have been more apropos so I'll go for that next.

This is epic - a chiropractor arguing biology with a biochemist.

What's hilarious is that he won't let up or as would be totally more appropriate: run away and hide.

Remember, the Nazis did not see Jews as human, so they experimented on them. If the whole Nazi society decided to remove the HUMAN tag from Jews then what the Nazis were doing was actually OK from their moral POV. They were furthering science. They should have used more anesthetic though but beyond 'cruelty to animals' they would have done no wrong. They did wrong because no matter how many Nazi scientists said that Jews were not human, they are.
Hence killing them was murder. An embryo is a new human. If you kill it, it won't become a fetus, baby, child and then an adult. If you leave it without interfering with it, it will go down that route (barring mistakes).

Aaaand Godwin!!! You're out buddy!! You just lost this debate and with such a magnificently ridiculous reaching argument that really this should be submitted to bash.org.