It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Making babies without eggs may be possible, say scientists

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2016 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

Have you got any studies and/or papers to suggest the possibility is there within human females?

Mice don't count.




posted on Sep, 13 2016 @ 10:39 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Then why are they ever even used in testing later adapted to human clinical trials?

Head slapper right?



posted on Sep, 13 2016 @ 10:43 PM
link   
a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

Used in testing and the results being any, equal to or better in humans is not what the tests are initially done for. They're done in mice to see if the claim is at all possible, even slightly.

You just need to search for cancer cure test trials done in mice and then humans to see how different the results are.



posted on Sep, 13 2016 @ 11:02 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Apparently you need to brush up on your mice research try: Knockout mice for starters.



posted on Sep, 13 2016 @ 11:08 PM
link   
a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

What about them?

I'll reiterate. Just because something works with a mouse doesn't mean it works in humans.

Your spermless egg was done on mice, not humans. There's nothing to say it would even work on humans. But the fact that it works on mice means that there's a chance it might. "Might" being the operative word.



posted on Sep, 13 2016 @ 11:35 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

You've nothing to add but instead standing in the way of science... much the same way many have done countless times before.

If you have an opposing view how about stating it instead of making baseless excuses... the reasoning you don't is because it will be a moral view and belief based which does not echo reality.

Of course taking that sort of view is not reality based so attack the data... this can work in humans ok?

So attacking the science or research is moot why not be straight up and say what you really feel that it is morally or ethical objectionable and state the reasons why you think so and discussion of that can actually take place...

This obfuscation of cracking jokes and attacking the science in order to derail discussion adds nothing that really needs to be discussed because they are already WELL known of course by that same token the morality or ethical reasons for carrying out such has likely been covered by similar things.

But it is not moot to discuss them here... as it could mean women or men could have another option to have children when not able to do so barring adoption of so very many children displaced by war that many of those same moral ideologies create aside from those accidental in nature any belief aside as the cause.

I am sure there are other valid reasoning as some already given in the commentary of the very first post. Morality should never ever be allowed to stand in the way of science and progress... of course ethically in how we treat life itself should be taken and given full consideration.



posted on Sep, 13 2016 @ 11:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
a reply to: TerryDon79

You've nothing to add but instead standing in the way of science... much the same way many have done countless times before.
So addressing what's posted and pointing out the flaws is me "standing in the way of science"? I think you need to understand that finding the errors is a big part of what is done in science.


If you have an opposing view how about stating it instead of making baseless excuses... the reasoning you don't is because it will be a moral view and belief based which does not echo reality.
I already did. The idea of the study in the op was good (read my second reply on page 1). The idea of women not needing spermless is based on a study on mice, not human females. It's got nothing to do with morality and everything to do with what's been presented.


Of course taking that sort of view is not reality based so attack the data... this can work in humans ok?
All I've done is address the data (after my initial joke). You keep saying it CAN work (the spermless egg) doesn't mean it will. It MIGHT work in humans.


So attacking the science or research is moot why not be straight up and say what you really feel that it is morally or ethical objectionable and state the reasons why you think so and discussion of that can actually take place...
Why is it moot? Isn't that EXACTLY the point? You go after the science and research if you find a problem with it? That's all I've done. Again, no morality has been brought into it.


This obfuscation of cracking jokes and attacking the science in order to derail discussion adds nothing that really needs to be discussed because they are already WELL known of course by that same token the morality or ethical reasons for carrying out such has likely been covered by similar things.
Really?! What did you want? An echo chamber? I never once said ANYTHING about morals or ethics, you did.


But it is not moot to discuss them here... as it could mean women or men could have another option to have children when not able to do so barring adoption of so very many children displaced by war that many of those same moral ideologies create aside from those accidental in nature any belief aside as the cause.
Thats incorrect. Men are not physically able to carry a child. We don't have the internals to do so. Your article doesn't say anything of the kind either. That's just you making stuff up.


I am sure there are other valid reasoning as some already given in the commentary of the very first post. Morality should never ever be allowed to stand in the way of science and progress... of course ethically in how we treat life itself should be taken and given full consideration.
Again with the morals and ethics. Show me where I used either of those words, outside of this post? You seem hung up on them.



posted on Sep, 13 2016 @ 11:47 PM
link   
a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

you were doing well until you brought the pseudo-science of vaccinations/immunizations into the
discussion. Who knows, maybe one day they'll make scientists that tell the truth, but I'll leave now so as
not to derail the great baby making quest



posted on Sep, 13 2016 @ 11:52 PM
link   
"Children of Men" watch the movie.



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 12:07 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

This multi quoting business you have done has been deemed by ATS as breaking the rules in the terms and conditions in case you have not seen the posting as it takes the entire message out of context and instead injects your own within it.

I have nothing to say to your commentary that broke ATS rules.
edit on 14-9-2016 by BigBrotherDarkness because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 12:09 AM
link   
a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

It was not out of context at all. I addressed every single point you made in each paragraph.

But I guess that's how it goes nowadays. Someone gets shown how they're wrong and they stamp their feet.

Well done.

ETA: Would you like to show me where it says I can't quote and reply to each paragraph? I've been doing it for close to a year and never had a problem. I think it's just a way you can try get around replying to a post.
edit on 1492016 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 12:12 AM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Please add a relevant discussion or some context...

I know spoilers bother some people but some people do not have such time to take and *spoiler alert* then describing it works for those that do not like spoilers... I personally do not care about spoilers so a whole synopsis from beginning to end is fine by me in how it relates. Plus I don't really have the time to sit down and watch it and see how it relates to this discussion.





posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 12:14 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Yes it was out of context as the entire post formed the whole of what was meant by it from start to finish. This is why ATS has the rule against breaking up posts and interjecting what you think or feel about it... instead of stating it in whole and not doing the quoting because it allows for things to be taken entirely out of context to the entire message.



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 12:20 AM
link   
a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

Yet you broke it up into sections (paragraphs) and I addressed each section.

Breaking up a post would be taking a single sentence out of context, not a whole paragraph.

So, why not address the points I made instead of complaining and saying I'm adding nothing?



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 12:26 AM
link   
a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

Do you prefer a wall of text?

I broke it up so it is easy to read.



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 12:28 AM
link   
a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

Still failing to address anything I said. Just arguing about how I posted.

You enjoy your made up fantasy of men carrying babies in their non existent womb. And mice studies miraculously proving something can be done in humans, even though there are thousands of cases saying otherwise.

I'm done.



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 12:34 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Ok as stated I am not going to respond because you broke ATS rules... now I am going to stop responding to you at all as it is also in ATS rules to give someone a change to further discussion.

This is not furthering any discussion this is you simply still trolling and not adding anything to it... if you want to make a point do so on the entire post within the rules and I'll read it and consider it.

But breaking the ATS rules absolutely not as it takes the entire thing out of context.



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 12:37 AM
link   
a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

Oh look. Still not addressing any relevant points that have been raised. Just ignoring them.

How very typical of someone who only wants to hear from people who don't understand how science works.



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 12:42 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

F--ck you Terry stop trolling.

You're breeding these posts faster than artificial eggs



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 01:06 AM
link   
a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

Trolling?

Oh, you mean showing where you got your presumptions wrong? Yeah, that's not trolling.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join