It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Spliced Human-Animal Hybrids Banned by Ohio, now US Considers

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 09:53 AM

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
The only people who argue about how we evolved from a common ancestor are those who don't understand evolution.

I've seen it argued various ways, so that would mean that each person who present and argument doesn't understand the other. Maybe this is where religion and science is really the same.

People can argue the point back to "oneness" then what? Do we consider that oneness an animal or human? I don't think people usually argue that far because they attempt to dissuade the argument with "evolution is not how life began on Earth," and they missed the point when they say such. One has to consider how life ever evolved on any land possible. The first division, like a cell division, of that "oneness" might have been between life and land itself. I just see that as a mutation and not as abiogenesis, so it still fits within evolution concepts.

This questions the whole moral issue of this prohibition. If the it is true there was a oneness, then the prohibition is unlawful. If there it is true that there has never been a mutation or hybridization between man and animal, then the prohibition seems to make sense. Under the notion of a Creator or Evolution, both concept seem to make the prohibition unlawful. I don't see how either one can make sense of the prohibition except as a political agenda.

[edit on 4-6-2010 by dzonatas]

posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 10:48 AM
There are lots of "spliced" images posted on DeviantArt's Splice Contest

Maybe these Senators know something about the reptilian race that pissed their pants:

posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 05:06 PM

Human Brain Cells Are Grown In Mice

By injecting human embryonic stem cells into the brains of fetal mice inside the womb, scientists in California have created living mice with working human brain cells inside their skulls.


The goal of that was to produce human brains in mice in order to understand how drugs affected humans.

That makes me think of this image:

posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 04:58 AM
My thoughts on this are very simple. I think its absolutely wrong for religious or political thinking to even enter into a scientific debate, and I think the people who best know the outcome of splicing, are those who are capable of practicing it , so it ought to be up to science as a community to decide amongst themselves. As long as they keep everyone informed and submit to regulatory checks and independant observation.
However, I have heard some stuff about splicing being used to research cures and effects of autism and other diseases and ailments . While thats true to an extent, the original purpose of splicing was to grow new organs, and so forth, not just observe the effects of faulty programing to determine cures and treatments. Since there will soon be an organ printing machine (sounds weird but its worth looking up) the MAIN reason for the splicing research will soon be moot, as there will be a faster, cheaper and easier method of creating these organs and so on.

posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 01:12 PM

Originally posted by TrueBrit
I think its absolutely wrong for religious or political thinking to even enter into a scientific debate,...

I don't think there is any way to stop it. Consider the Middle-East wars over the land, there already have been several attempts to claim who is the rightful owner by DNA. That goes pretty deep to say that even the zealots think not everybody is human just by the mere fact they think only certain people with certain DNA can own certain land.

It might eventually even question how a woman became pregnant without a father. If the bill regulates "nonhuman" species being put into human embryos, then it even questions if the religion itself is from legal descent.

What are we, scientifically, gonna do with all these people that claim to be of such related DNA that is thought to be of such origins? We can't just say: this is only a scientific debate, so lets ignore history.

I think the only way to solve this is to have more solid facts to support such legislature rather it be by science or not.

posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 09:51 PM
It looks like there are 'Christian' groups behind the bill:

Ohio Christian Alliance President Chris Long made the following statement, "For the past seven years, OCA has been working tirelessly with members of the Ohio Legislature to ban embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, and in recent years, animal-human hybrid. Science has advanced to the point where DNA from animals and humans can be intermixed in scientific laboratory experimentation. This is simply outrageous! Animal-human hybrid research is currently being conducted in England, which many in the international medical community now consider to be a rogue medical state. It is unknown how many U.S. laboratories are currently conducting similar research.

Source: Huffington Post

The 'creator'/DNA discussion continues in a galaxy not so far away...

[edit on 5-6-2010 by dzonatas]

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 06:28 PM
reply to post by muzzleflash

Errr thats like saying Aliens want to kill us. They are obviously here already,
technologically they are far more advanced and could kill as in a whim,
so why are we still alive? I think you by saying we create "monsters" is
going a bit to far. Yes it is of course not "natural" but so are GM foods
and yet you eat them.
Your letting fear make conclusions for you, the fear of becoming extinct as a spieces.
Why would a intelligent AI armed with rockets want to wipe us out unless it is
programmed to or see's us as a danger to it? It's not human so it wouldn't have
the desires that drive the stupid into crime if it so smarter than us. We are not
the ultimate species, certainly at the top of the food chain in the world, but we are very
weak as a species, we are short of resources and constantly crush each other to
have more and more simply because the thought of the more the better.

We keep seeing as other species from our point of view, what we would do if was to
be them, that is just very ignorant of humans as a species. If someone was to
pull out a knife towards me and I had a gun, I'd obviously defend myself using the gun.
If you was to threaten these newly created species "monsters" they will certainly be a threat
to you.
Of course humans cannot live with each other without killing each other, how could we
ever live another intelligent species? When Africa was first discovered lots of its
inhabitants was made slaves, australia and most of its natives was anihilated much
like the natives of america. Get a grip.

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 07:10 PM

Originally posted by muzzleflash
You have no right to create frankenstein monsters, NONE! But we the people do have a right to stop you.

Says who? You??? What makes you entitled to stop it? What gives you that right?


You are also not a scientist. Developing an A.I. and putting missiles on it is hardly the same thing. Developing chimera CELLS can save peoples lives, yet you have some unjustified fear that they are going to let these things grow into mutated animals and live amongst us.


Watch another Sci-fi original picture dude.... I know my rights, I'm a freeman... so if I WANT TO take my OWN cells and MIX them with an Animals, you have no right to tell me I can't.


I also think there is a very important distinction that needs to be made.

HUMANS ARE MAMALS, MAMALS ARE ANIMALS. We are just intelligent ones. Why do we think we are exempt to this definition?
edit on 18-6-2011 by Laokin because: (no reason given)

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in