OT: Superman and Stemcells

[Ygorl]

The DNA's not the hard part, is my understanding. It's what you put it into when you're done with it. If you've got a nice little undifferentiated cell into whose nucleus you can stick your DNA, you're pretty much set. I hear the phrase "make a mouse" more than I ever thought I would. If you wanted to make the initial cell "by hand", you'd have to do all kinds of crazy manipulations (assembling the cell membrane from lipid molecules, building mitochondria, etc. etc. etc.) that aren't practical or reasonable or necessary. We already clone things. We already manipulate the DNA used to do what we want. While it would be incredibly far from trivial to make a human with at least certain desired characteristics, I think it's more an issue of being willing and fine-tuning the details of the procedure.
And, while I'm talking about things I've only a limited understanding of, the "6000 years since creation" bit is based on some dodgy translation of the Old Testament. It's possible to have a moderately strict interpretation of the Bible (as long as you pick the right one and have a little imagination) that doesn't conflict with the theory of evolution.
Logic springs from a set of axioms. If you start with a different set, you get different predictions. Those required to make claims about things like morality, religion, politics, drug use, are rather complex and opaque, to the point that even things that should be irrelevant in discussing them (such as the language you're using) make a huge difference. It's possible in somce cases, but always difficult, to say "given these assumptions, these things are good and these things are true and these things are right". That's what philosophy is about. But even the best philosophers (maybe _especially_ the best) don't claim to know what all the right assumptions are.
Finally, just because something is not falsifiable does not mean it is false. It's perfectly valid to not accept something as true that is not falsifiable (well, if there's no evidence for its being true, anyway). It does not make sense, however, to accept it as false.

[Gandalf Parker]

Arryn said:If said experiment turns out a breathing, thinking human, where will that leave religion (and what many religions teach about humans)?

Wont disturb mine. Now when you can do it without the egg or sperm as a starting point then it will get interesting. (virtual life? AI? energy-based conciousness? Commander Data? the Dr Hologram-guy?)

[Arryn]

Desthai, religion fails the "reasonable doubt" test, nevermind the "shadow of a doubt" degree of proof. I had to say that first to get it out of my system.

The fact that science tests itself, and theories change to fit observations, is a strength, not a weakness. Besides the logical fallacies of most religions, they also have the serious flaw of not adapting to new knowledge.

Time for another analogy: You and I are friends. I have no reason to lie to you, and (knowing this) you have no reason to distrust/doubt what I tell you. Over the span of many years I tell you all sorts of things about my past. You believe my stories, for you trust me (and trusting me, you never check a third party to see if what I say is true). One day, it so happens that you discover something that sheds doubt on something I've told you. You confront me. (Very brave of you to go against your long tradition of trust.) I insist that what I said is true. You show me proof that I am wrong. I do not accept your proof. You walk away thinking that either I am not mentally sound, or I'm an obstinate liar. Either way, you now question to yourself what else I might have told you that isn't true. Had I admitted to being mistaken, you *might* convince yourself that what you discovered was a unique event and that your friendship remained solid, despite whatever nagging doubt(s) you might have. Alas, you can no longer trust me, for I have deceived you and I am unwilling or incapable of distinguishing fact from fiction. I either deceive you deliberately, or I'm self-deluded and insist on sharing that delusion with you.

So it is with most religions. They have no credibility.

Do you drive a car, or fly in airplanes? If so, you are placing an enormous amount of trust (enormous as in your life) in science, as well as in the skill of other drivers and mechanics. The reason you can get away with this is because the engineering these objects are based on is backed by meticulously-tested science (unless you are one of those rare people who think cars are powered by tiny demons trapped inside the engine who drink gasoline and fart continuously).

BTW, attacking the attacker is what the weak do because they are unwilling or incapable of defending their own position. It's an attempt to throw the opponent off-balance so that you don't have to test your own defenses. You hope that you can keep your foe busy enough that he doesn't plow through the holes in your position.

[Huzurdaddi]

It is easier (by far) to modify existing DNA than create DNA from scratch. By analogy, it used to be easier to dig up diamonds than make them in a lab.

I think a more apt analogy would be that it is easier to cut and paste code from samples into a new program than to program from scratch. Or that it is easier to program using libraries than to program using only keywords.

DNA is little more than the memory system of a computer ( plus a little CPU thrown in for good luck ).

And I think we'll be engineering our own sooner rather than later if moore's law ( observation? ) continues to play out.

[Gandalf Parker]

Zen said:

I doubt you have the proof that is why it was created or have any eyewitness accounts of such reasoning during Religion's creation. However: Even with that, the common theory it was not 'created' to give comfort to primitive people who fear what they don't understand but rather a way to control the primitive people by giving them a standard of belief with which could be manipulated by the priest class for social 'improvement' and standardization of governing morals.

What interesting choices of words. Religion was "invented" or "created"? Hmmm possibly so. I think I might have said developed over time because it achieved those things rather than setup such a harsh shyster view. Im not offended mostly because I consider "religion" as quite different from "religious". The two serve very different purposes.

[Gandalf Parker]

NTJedi said:
The real question is when does the soul arrive... yet mankind doesn't know. Destroying the temple(body/organism) for where a soul may reside is definitely wrong.

Which leads to the catholic banning of male masturbation? Which carried to its extreme led to monks disease?
The banning of all procedures or surgeries which might affect the birthing process at all? birth control? Vasectomy? removing even partially a womb even if it would save the life of the mother?
Also the banning of all surgeries to seperate twins? Even if done to save one?

Logical arguments are fine but if you try to say that something "crosses a line" then you need to be willing to consider where the line should be. Im not ready to say that all eggs must be fertilized and all carried to full term and all eggs must be buried properly.

[deccan]

Arryn said:
However, there are other reasons why this particular behavior is irrational. As I said, think outside the box.

Well I guess I need this explained to me too.

Taking a wild stab, I'll say that you'll be trying to logically forge a link between the long-term consequences of such behavior and the principle of self-preservation.

I believe that the problem that J.O. raised and Evil Dave further explained doesn't go away with that. Basic foundational values cannot really be justified through logic (i.e. you need some basic premises to work with and to apply logic on). Logic (and science) can explain why someone might hold a particular set of values, but that isn't the same as justifying it. On the other hand, once a set of basic foundational values exists, logic can be used to work out derivative values required to uphold the basic foundational ones and so forth.

[Arryn]

Johan, if I were to call you "arrogant", as you have done to me in post #302639, especially more than once in a single post and going out of your way to be insulting and turn a discussion into a personal attack, I'm certain that Tim would ban me from the board for flaming you, and with good cause. As a moderator you can (and do) ignore the rules as you see fit. However, until such time as you learn to be civil, and behave by the rules that you expect from the rest of us, I don't feel obliged to speak to you further.

[Arryn]

deccan said:
Taking a wild stab, I'll say that you'll be trying to logically forge a link between the long-term consequences of such behavior and the principle of self-preservation.

You're getting warmer. Very warm.

[johan osterman]

Arryn said:
Johan, if I were to call you "arrogant", as you have done to me in post #302639, especially more than once in a single post and going out of your way to be insulting and turn a discussion into a personal attack, I'm certain that Tim would ban me from the board for flaming you, and with good cause. As a moderator you can (and do) ignore the rules as you see fit. However, until such time as you learn to be civil, and behave by the rules that you expect from the rest of us, I don't feel obliged to speak to you further.

This thin skinnedness is a bit rich coming from you. Whatever happened to 'not mincing words' and similar the phrases that you used to be so keen on.