Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

71543Re: [creationevolutiondebate] Human Chimp Cross| was Re: The bonobo genome |

Expand Messages
  • Katherine Trammell
    Jul 29, 2012
      Hello, I don't find it disgusting, but it is an inevitability that some transhuman genetic crossing will be available in the future, not in the US or Europe, but probably Asian countries....who will have plenty of American/European buyers. 

      Probably athletes will come first, to enhance their genes with say those of a hyena or wolf who can run for miles and miles and never get tired, or the muscles of a great ape for weight lifters....and again, why would the US military or DARPA not create a better soldier? Of course, in the near future for say about 300 years such transhumanism gene transfers will be voluntary, and then in time, maybe not. 

      What I do know is that everyone wants to live a long time, and some of us would love to live forever. That will only happen when we can not only enhance our genes, but grow replacement parts in the laboratory or in some animal genetically designed to copy and grow a new heart or lungs for us. Why not? 

      The imaginary god created quite imperfect human beings, whose job it was to breed the next generation, and then we died. The imaginary god, or rather nature, only cared that human beings lived long enough to reproduce the next generation. In Jesus time, if he existed, the longest one could expect to live was around 25 for women, and 25 for males. 

      And its only been since around the 1900s that science and medicine has increased the life span of human beings which is now well into the 80s and even 90s. One use to be "old" at 45, and now its possible if one takes care of one's self, takes vitamins, sleeps well, eats good food, has good hygiene, and decent genetics, to not be considered old till late in one's 60s or 70s. I'm seeing more and more very active oldsters in their 70s who have the health of 40 year old people. And transhumanism is next. Why not. 

      Aging happens for a couple of reasons, one of which is every time the cell divides it loses some of its genetic material, which is now being repaired through the process of injection of telomerase that repairs the RNA transcriptase ...so that it can appear young all over again. A number of compounds such as hyaluronic acid repairs the telomers and is now found in topical cosmetic creams, and as injectibles that regrow cartilage in knees, and plumps out wrinkles in the face (Restylen). One of the reasons why babies have such soft skin is that it has a high level of hyaluronic acid.

      Another reason skin or cells age, is that they fill up with dirt. Yes dirt, that the body could not get rid of...because it bonded with free radicals (negative ions) and stayed in the cells. If you look at the back of some people's hands and see "age spots" (lipofuscin) that is clogging up the body. If its on the back of people's hands, its also in the heart, lungs, and brain clogging up cells aging them. So, what to do? 

      People can live longer, by preventing such oxidents from bonding, with anti oxidents. The very best anti oxident so far, is found in French maritine pine bark, with the active ingredient being pycnogenol, which is also found in grape seed. Pycnogenol can up take about 23 known free radicals, whereas, Vitamin C, E, etc. only uptakes about 3-4 free radicals. Its not cheap, but it can be found at discount vitamin stores and online. 

      What helps cells is to take Co-Enzyme Q-10, and a bunch of other stuff that I won't go into now. Vitamin C reinforces the microtubules (sort of like the cells' rebars found in cement construction) and is necessary to keep cells stiff and acting as barriers against cancer cells that "eat" away, or rather dissolve cells to prepare the way through inflammation for cancer cells. Omega 3 fatty acids do much to reduce the body's inflammation response. 

      Enough already. This is a subject close to my heart as I'm aging...and praying to god and Jesus is not going to make me young or healthy.

      kt

      Wrinkled skin is the result of the loss of genetic material and frayed ends of telomeres that when they divide or split again, do not transfer all of the genetic material as one gets older.


       

      Objectivism - the philosophy of Ayn Rand. "My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." - Ayn Rand


      ________________________________
      From: T <timothyekennelly@...>
      To: creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:08 AM
      Subject: [creationevolutiondebate] Human Chimp Cross| was Re: The bonobo genome |


       
      Katherine,

      You have given a fine response. I am posting below a question I posted a while ago on a Philosophy Forum, you might find it of interest.

      Regards,

      Timothy E. Kennelly

      Subject: Human-Chimp Cross
      I have come across the suggestion [Jonathan Marks "What It Means to be 98% Chimpanzee" chap. 10] that a cross breeding of humans and chimps would be wrong, not because of any banal appeal to the limits of human knowledge, or some limits set by God, or some natural limit or natural right in a broad sense, but rather because of the moral obligation to the human-chimp who will be alone without brother or sister and having no social identity. I will add, scientifically I can see no reason not to produce a human-chimp as we might by studying such creature learn many things about humans and chimps alike.

      This seems a very reasoanble, until one considers that if one can produce one human-chimp, one might produce many human chimps. If we can produce 100 human-chimps, then Marks moral oppositions seems to go away. Certainly if one has 100 brothers or sisters in the world one has a place socially, one is not alone.

      So my question is: Is there a more fundamental reason for not producing a human-chimp?

      I will offer a possible answer. Nevertheless, I find the idea of a human-chimp problematic - even disgusting. I would tend to argue against it on the ground that human life has value and would be devalued by the production of a cross breed. This is essentially one of the old banal arguments to the effect that such an act is simply wrong, even if we can create a community in which the human-chimp has a social identity. One might say it is simply wrong by virtue of an appeal to a correct or natural relationship between humans and chimps - a relationships that does not allow for sex or cross breeding. Or, one might argue that the act is simply wrong because it is contrary to traditional religious teachings. In any case, the act would be simply wrong.

      --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, Katherine Trammell <katherinetrammell@...> wrote:
      >
      > You are correct, and I am aware of the complexities of such a comparison. However, we are closely linked to benobos....and actually linked to many animals including fish. For example: Zebra fish have 50% of the same genetics as human beings. Thus Zebra fish are sold to labs for experimentation. 
      >
      > One of the areas I am most interested in is junk DNA....what is it, where did it come from, does it have, or not have a use, did it ever have a use. Is it left over from evolution? Any knowledge on this topic would make me happy. 
      >
      > And another topic that just tickles my gizzard is transhumanism. I would love to have the gene for luciferitase (sic) inserted into my genes and glow in the dark. A couple of years ago, I talked with an military opthalmologist who said it is possible to insert dog dna for vision into humans so they could see better in the dark. What if....the military is already experimenting with all kinds of animal DNA transference into human beings? Is that a cool thought or not. 
      >
      > Hugs, Katherine
      >  
      >
      > Objectivism - the philosophy of Ayn Rand. "My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." - Ayn Rand
      >
      >
      > ________________________________
      > From: T <timothyekennelly@...>
      > To: creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 7:59 AM
      > Subject: [creationevolutiondebate] Re: The bonobo genome & rewinding the tape of life
      >
      >
      >  
      > Actually it is a complex interpretation of a number of facts, so it is an inference; however, it is not the inference I was speaking of.
      > You seem to a have a very simple view of these things, as if because a number is in a sentence written by a scientist it is therefore a fact. Our DNA is very similar to chimp and bonobo DNA, but the percentage of similarity is an intrepretation of what can be known about the subject directly because an explanation of what can be known directly would require a much longer discussion than "90 plus some odd percent similar."
      > The inference I was speaking of is common descent.
      >
      > Kind Regards to you Katherine,
      >
      > Timothy E. Kennelly
      >
      > --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, Katherine Trammell <katherinetrammell@> wrote:
      > >
      > > sharing 98.65 of our genetic dna is not an inference, it is a fact
      > >  
      > >
      > > Objectivism - the philosophy of Ayn Rand. "My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." - Ayn Rand
      > >
      > >
      > > ________________________________
      > > From: T <timothyekennelly@>
      > > To: creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com
      > > Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 9:03 AM
      > > Subject: [creationevolutiondebate] Re: The bonobo genome & rewinding the tape of life
      > >
      > >
      > >  
      > > Given that you are speaking of an inference which was not really discovered until the 19th century and is currently one of the most important inferences in all of science I would tend to argue that the inference does supply specific information which is not self-evident and can be discovered.
      > >
      > > Timothy E. Kennelly
      > >
      > > --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, "HumanCarol" <humanist@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > "T" <timothyekennelly@> wrote:
      > > > > > > If apes and humans have one common ancestor that lived some five or seven million years ago, then all of its ancestors are common to both humans and apes.>>
      > > >
      > > > "HumanCarol" <humanist@> wrote:
      > > > > > And that is some sort of useful factoid?
      > > > > > All it means is that anything which is alive has a common ancestor.
      > > > > > Not very specific.
      > > >
      > > > "T" <timothyekennelly@> wrote:
      > > > > Well, it is apparently true and obvious, but when I made the comment you asked what I meant by it. I suggested neither that it is a factoid, nor that it is useful, but it is apparently true.>>
      > > >
      > > > My point was that "common ancestry" is referenced in regard to specificity of relatedness.
      > > >
      > > > That everything which is alive now has a common ancestor provides no specific information about relatedness, does it?
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 31 messages in this topic