Guest BelariathsSage Posted April 24, 2003 Posted April 24, 2003 Just an unusual question, but does anyone think it is currently possible, with today's modern technology, to accurately combine the genes of a human with an animal, say a wolf, to create a totally unique, new species of creature, with the attributes of both species? In this case, added strength, problem solving skills, the unique appearance of a wolf, as well as the added benefit of the increased senses? Just a question, but a damn good one, don't you think?
fafalone Posted April 24, 2003 Posted April 24, 2003 yup, in fact there is a company working on combining all different genes to create an entirely new species.
Guest BelariathsSage Posted April 24, 2003 Posted April 24, 2003 Maybe, just maybe, I might be able to help them. I have all kinds of theories on this sort of thing, but...Nobody wants to break those "ethic" things. So, who is the company, and how do I get ahold of them, because very soon, I think we might have a brand new species on our hands.
the GardenGnome Posted April 24, 2003 Posted April 24, 2003 They could make a batboy like in the weekly world news. Weekly World News
T_FLeX Posted April 24, 2003 Posted April 24, 2003 Originally posted by BelariathsSage Maybe, just maybe, I might be able to help them. I have all kinds of theories on this sort of thing, but...Nobody wants to break those "ethic" things. So, who is the company, and how do I get ahold of them, because very soon, I think we might have a brand new species on our hands. I feel ya man, who gives a shit about ethics? ............apparently a lot of people do, personally I see nothing wrong with this type of experimentation. I'm just curious, how exactly do you plan on helping this company? I'm very curious about this subject as well, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of info out there on it. Seems like people would be all over this. I can see there would be some moral dilemmas using animals but, what about in plants? I know we have genetically modified foods, but for the most part they seem pretty tame. The GM foods we have out now just grow better and are resistant to pesticides correct? Where are all the apples the size of watermelons? Do you see where I'm going with this?
daisy Posted April 24, 2003 Posted April 24, 2003 I'm fairly sure I know what company Fafalone is referring to but my question would be - Why? What do you need to create a new species for? Other than plants - and I'm not sure about the environmental impact they might have but at least they are developed for what are SUPPOSEDLY good reasons - I see no point. Do you have a good reason? Do tell. As to the company in question - if it's who i think it is (Human genome project, and a guy who wants to patent genes for crying out loud whose initials are C.V.) then I would ask the same question of them. How the hell could it even be legally permissible to patent something (such as a gene) that you didn't invent because it just exists anyway? Correct me if I'm wrong but patents should be about INVENTIONS - not discoveries - or am I barking up the wrong tree?
T_FLeX Posted April 25, 2003 Posted April 25, 2003 Originally posted by daisy I'm fairly sure I know what company Fafalone is referring to but my question would be - Why? What do you need to create a new species for? Other than plants - and I'm not sure about the environmental impact they might have but at least they are developed for what are SUPPOSEDLY good reasons - I see no point. Do you have a good reason? Do tell. As to the company in question - if it's who i think it is (Human genome project, and a guy who wants to patent genes for crying out loud whose initials are C.V.) then I would ask the same question of them. How the hell could it even be legally permissible to patent something (such as a gene) that you didn't invent because it just exists anyway? Correct me if I'm wrong but patents should be about INVENTIONS - not discoveries - or am I barking up the wrong tree? Why? Why not? The idea has enormous potential. Imagine a genetically modified chicken that is basically just two huge breast BelariathsSage do a search on Craig Venter, he's the guy who owns the companies I think their talking about. I don't think they patent the genes themselves, but rather the idea of combining genes and making a new species. I read an article about the guys that tried this (I don't know if the patent went through). They are basically just some pro-Jesus bible thumpers trying to stop scientist from playing God. I can’t stand those people.
Radical Edward Posted April 25, 2003 Posted April 25, 2003 Originally posted by daisy I'm fairly sure I know what company Fafalone is referring to but my question would be - Why? What do you need to create a new species for? why do people climb mountains? why do people look for mathematical solutions that will have no use to anyone? why do people write powtry no-on will ever read? because they can. It is human nature.
Radical Edward Posted April 25, 2003 Posted April 25, 2003 Originally posted by BelariathsSage Just an unusual question, but does anyone think it is currently possible, with today's modern technology, to accurately combine the genes of a human with an animal, say a wolf, to create a totally unique, new species of creature, with the attributes of both species? In this case, added strength, problem solving skills, the unique appearance of a wolf, as well as the added benefit of the increased senses? Just a question, but a damn good one, don't you think? remember that genes code for nothing more than proteins.
Rekkr Posted February 11, 2005 Posted February 11, 2005 Yes and no. It is possible to use traits from one species in another, but to merge the two is almost impossible. Each animal has evolved to its own particular physiology, so transplanting one trait to another animal probably wouldn't work.
muhali3 Posted February 18, 2005 Posted February 18, 2005 why do people climb mountains?why do people look for mathematical solutions that will have no use to anyone? why do people write powtry no-on will ever read? because they can. It is human nature. It is not necessarily because they can, but because they want to, mainly for self-benefiting purposes. If somone knew they could kill themself, would they do it? They would only kill themself if it benefited them in some way.
Aardvark Posted February 18, 2005 Posted February 18, 2005 It is not necessarily because they can' date=' but because they want to, mainly for self-benefiting purposes. [/quote'] I think the point was that there are no obvious self benefiting purposes to climbing a mountain, writing poetry no one will ever read or looking for obscure mathematical solutions. Yet people do these things anyway.
Newtonian Posted February 18, 2005 Posted February 18, 2005 Just an unusual question, but does anyone think it is currently possible, with today's modern technology, to accurately combine the genes of a human with an animal, say a wolf, to create a totally unique, new species of creature, with the attributes of both species? In this case, added strength, problem solving skills, the unique appearance of a wolf, as well as the added benefit of the increased senses? Just a question, but a damn good one, don't you think? Its already been done,along time ago.We even gave them a name, a Lycanthrope.However the manufacture of silver bullets saw a decrease in numbers.They retreated from public view to such a degree,that they have now become shrouded in the mists of folklore.
Synaptik Gap Posted February 18, 2005 Posted February 18, 2005 yeah, and Spider-Man, Santa Clause, and the Easter Bunny are all real too. See what happens when you mess with crossing genes? Maybe we'll get a new holiday, and it'll have a milk-producing palm tree with tiger stripes and a mane as a symbol.Bad idea.
Hellbender Posted February 18, 2005 Posted February 18, 2005 yeah, and Spider-Man, Santa Clause, and the Easter Bunny are all real too. See what happens when you mess with crossing genes? Maybe we'll get a new holiday, and it'll have a milk-producing palm tree with tiger stripes and a mane as a symbol.Bad idea. LOL!!!! As a Spider-Man fan, I find this reference funny. Spider-Man comics are full of this sort of topic with characters like The Lizard, a half-man, half-lizard villain. Seriously though, I fail to see how this sort of thing is possible or even necessary.
syntax252 Posted February 18, 2005 Posted February 18, 2005 All of this brings up an interesting question. At least it seems interesting to me. What if, rather than create a new species, we changed an existing species to the point that it was educable? Suppose we changed the genes around in a chimp until it was smart enough to know the difference between itself and us, and was even able to communicate with us? And further, suppose it understood that we were conducting experiments on it and others just like it and it told us that it didn't want to be experimented on? What kind of ethical delimma would that present to us? It doesn't seem right to conduct medical experiments on anything that was pleading with us not to do so. Which brings up another question. If we could alter the genes in an animal to the point that it was able to plead for it's life, would it be ethical for us not to do so? If a cat, for example, was used in medical experiments, and we justified that by saying that, after all, the cat doesn't even know that it is a cat, but all the time we had it in our power to make the cat smart enough to be self aware and even communicate with us somehow and try to get us to stop, would it be ethical to withold that from the poor old cat?
Sayonara Posted February 19, 2005 Posted February 19, 2005 Suppose we changed the genes around in a chimp until it was smart enough to know the difference between itself and us, and was even able to communicate with us? Chimps can do both of those without genetic modifications, so you'll only need a third of that research budget
syntax252 Posted February 19, 2005 Posted February 19, 2005 Chimps can do both of those without genetic modifications, so you'll only need a third of that research budget I understand that chimps have been able to communicate their immediate needs to a human--at least if what I saw on TV is true, but I am referring to an animal (not necessarily a chimp) who was so altered that it could conceptualize it's position in the world and realized that it was going to be put to the knife, or injected with chemicals just to see what would happen and that it desperately didn't want that to happen. At what point would we be ethically in trouble if we........ A) continued these experiments on altered animals who knew what was happening and wanted no part of it, or.... B) We didn't alter the intelligence of the animal for the purpose of being able to conduct experiments on it without hearing these cries for mercy? Now, by "cries for mercy" I don't mean spoken in English, but through whatever means that an intellectually altered animal used to communicate with humans.
atinymonkey Posted February 19, 2005 Posted February 19, 2005 What if, what if, what if? What if giant space zombie Jesus popped out of your navel demanding corn puffs? Oh my god, could you imagine that?
Newtonian Posted February 19, 2005 Posted February 19, 2005 What if Tiny woke up one morning and suddenly acted nice to Cadmus,and stopped disrupting other threads just because he was in a mood.Oh my god,could you imagine that?
MolecularMan14 Posted February 19, 2005 Posted February 19, 2005 What if Tiny woke up one morning and suddenly acted nice to Cadmus,and stopped disrupting other threads just because he was in a mood.Oh my god,could you imagine that? What if someone were to stop being sarcastic, and just defend Cadmus (?!?) with dignity?! I've only read a few posts (short on time), anyway, would you mind sharing some of your secret theories on chimeras? Not to bring anyone down here, but I dont see any purpose other than experimental to make a chimera... Plants on the other hand, I see practicality! Bioremediation could be a large factor in the hybridization across the range of plants.
Sayonara Posted February 19, 2005 Posted February 19, 2005 What if Cadmus had even posted in this thread?
Newtonian Posted February 19, 2005 Posted February 19, 2005 Then we would be sat here reading childish bickering,whilst eating coco pops til 3am in the morning.
MolecularMan14 Posted February 19, 2005 Posted February 19, 2005 What if Cadmus had even posted in this thread? lol, hense the (?!?) in other post
rakuenso Posted February 20, 2005 Posted February 20, 2005 the chances of creating a human hybrid with anything other than a chimp are very very slim.... the genes have to make-up for the differences in homeostasis, biological clocks, metabolism the list goes on an on
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now