Slashdot Mirror
'Predecessor' Neurons to Human Brain Discovered
Yale researchers claim to have found the very first neurons in what eventually becomes the human brain. Developed before most anything else, these neurons are in place just 31 days after fertilization. From the article: "We hypothesize that these predecessor neurons may be a transient population involved in determining the number of functional radial units including the human specific regions of the cerebral cortex mediating higher cognitive functions," Rakic said. "As a next step it is essential to determine their neural stem cell lineage, pattern of gene expression, developmental role and eventual fate."
and on the 32nd day, the currently dim-witted embryo signs up for a myspace account.
"We hypothesize that these predecessor neurons may be a transient population involved in determining the number of functional radial units including the human specific regions of the cerebral cortex mediating higher cognitive functions..."
Oh, wow. That's actually pretty clear! It's actually all written right there. I suppose it was a real head-smacking time down at the lab when this statement came down the line, being so obvious.
I can hear the "human life begins at conception" crowd exploiting this just now.
Some are afraid of artificial intelligence. I'm afraid I'll have to get my kid "enhanced" just so he can keep up in school. Meat is programmable too. Knowledge is good but ethics will hopefully ease our future obsolescence.
Shh.
Yale researchers claim to have found the very first neurons in what eventually becomes the human brain.
The human brain isn't made out of neurons. It is not something you just dump something on. It's not a truck. It's a series of tubes. And if you don't understand those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and its going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material.
Push Button, Receive Bacon
When your blood alcohol comes down you'll probably realise that you're not going to find much likeness regarding brain development between humans and C. Elegans. Because they don't have much of a brain... in fact they're lacking circulatory and respiratory systems as well.
WRONG. Maybe worms don't have a "brain" as we know it, but they are a very good model for nervous systems. Nearly 1/3 of the cells of C. elegans worms are neurons, and the entire lineage of every cell in the adult worm is well mapped. Worms are a good animal model system, and combined with research from flies (Drosophila) and mice, much is known about neural development. Since we are humans, clearly, we are often most interested specifically in what is know about our own development. So the Yale study, while not entirely novel, certainly is an important study in a long line of great research to help us understand the development and wiring of the brain.
I didn't claim that the brain cells of elegans was known- they haven't properly got one, as you point out. I was saying that the fate of ALL cells in the elegans zygote are known- that you can trace the development of a single cell from ferticlization to adult. If you want to know what the cell in the fourth quadrant upper right is (i don't know the mapping schema- I do trees) you can go look it up somewhere, and conversely, if you want to know which cell in the blastocyte produced the segment you're looking at under the microscope you can find that information as well. I had thought this proceudre had been done on humans as well, but I was apparently wrong, that or this article is old news. It is /. after all.
Uh, "if it looks roughly mouse-shaped according to my infra-red sensitive pit, eat it"? --Chris Burke 09-08-10
...Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great... ...If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate....
:)
If the souls of aborted babies go to heaven, then shoudn't the christians ENCOURAGE abortion as much as possible? Especially in athiests? I mean, saving the child's soul is the most important thing, right? What kind of loving parent would allow the child's soul to come in danger of eternal torment, when salvation is just an abortion away?
Oh, awesome! Yale researchers have discovered the new Pro-Life debate! Those guys are amazing.
This page was generated by a Barrel of Circus Midgets, and that is the way I like it!!!
All this is evidence of is how efficient the marketing departments of large institutions like Yale and Oxford are. This paper is novel for one reason: it is in human embryos. Sure, they found a population of neurons earlier than, and different from, those in any other species, but the role of these neurons or even if they survive for long, is unknown. It is worth noting that these embryos were harvested from a Russian abortion clinic. Makes me wonder whether they shipped the whole embryo, the slices of the brain, or just the data over to Oxford. -BilZ0r www.ilikethings.net
-BilZ0r www.ilikethings.net
I'm only speaking for myself and anyone who decides to agree with me after I've made this statement.
I'm pro-choice.
Life begins before conception.
It is continued through conception, and lasts onward through birth.
Before about the sixth month, a human baby will not be able to
develop a fully functional brain if removed from the uterus.
Up until that point, I feel that if a woman doesn't feel they can
raise a child properly, they should have the right to stop their
pregnancy in a method safe for themselves. It's better than the
alternatives for them. I think it's also important to allow doctors
who could use the same techniques to save lives if it is deemed a
birth would kill a woman.
I think that it's a hard decision to decide to stop a pregnancy,
and I think it should be, which is why I'm not trying to sway any
'pro-lifers' off their fence. They can have it. I think it's sick
what the extremist pro-lifers do, but you don't see pro-choicers
running around aborting every fetus they can find, no matter how
extreme they are, so pardon me while I hold the argument that you
need to get the people on the far side of the fence into some level
of control. Those people are seriously sick and need attention for
it.
I find the results of this cool. It's exciting research. Keep the
pro-X bullshit out of it. I will love it when one day I've got a kid
on the way and I can plot out what part of it is growing when. There's
a lot of value in that.
I wouldn't consider the mad hatter mad. Just reality impaired. He sure can make a mean cup of tea.
This worm is quite interesting, in that it has evolved to use OTHER animals nervous systems: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nematomorpha
I'm too afraid to click.
Life is not for the lazy.
Well I was extremely curious myself. PLus I am in Fedora, not XP...anyways, it's all asian. Looks like spam sites to me, just fodder for blacklisting.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
Odd...I was just listening to that song...
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Slashdot: 'Predecessor' Neurons to Human Brain Discovered
Me: Whee! Does this mean I can finally get laid?
Fantastic!
Now it's only a matter of time before I can create my invincible army of mind-controlled fetal cyborg soldiers!
It's certainly not been done for humans, as the cell count is already staggering at the age of a month (versus around 1000 cells in total for C. elegans), you can't study the process properly in vitro, and of course ethical issues at some point. AFAIK, it's not been done for mice either, and that would probably be a more reasonable start, although still much more demanding than C. elegans.
to give birth, baptise the kid, and then strangle them before they get the chance to reject God. Salvation 100% guaranteed.
(Honestly though, I love children. It's just that I could never eat a whole one...)
The fundamental question is when does life begin.
That question isn't well posed. Eggs are alive. Sperm are alive. Zygotes and embryos and fetuses and infants are all alive. A better question needs to be asked.
The disagreement is when does "your body" become "their body"
I view it as a disagreement over whether the state can force you to give birth or not. The only reason this has become such an issue in recent human history is because, for the first time, the state has taken an active interest in abortion. Something it never really cared about before. I happen to see the logical conclusion of the pro-life movement as women of childbearing age having to register and undergo regular gynecological checkups to see if abortions have taken place. The logic of their position demands it.
May the Maths Be with you!
Of course, that will make studying them all the more difficult if they are a uniquely human cell population, as currently there have been no public attempts to surgically or genetically modify human embryos in the name of science.
I also found it interesting that 3 of the 4 authors are affiliated with the Institute of Experimental Medicine in Russia, yet TFA mentions 'Yale' and 'Oxford' only.
"We hypothesize that these predecessor neurons may be a transient population involved in determining the number of functional radial units including the human specific regions of the cerebral cortex mediating higher cognitive functions..."
Is that a fancy way of saying the neurons are a boot loader?
I've seen the exact same arguments applied to banning the eating of pork. The parent post's position would be similar for that but not get mod up.
Its hair splitting based on beliefs. The way the republic is supposed to work is that disputed beliefs are not imposed on others.
Both sides of the argument are NOT the same. One actually IMPOSES on you legal definitions which as a result takes away freedoms; the other does not, because you can't impose freedom by definition.
If you can't eat pork because its sacrilege, don't eat it then.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
That's because a felon on death row is guilty of sin ("thou shalt not commit murder"), while the unborn baby girl inside her mother is not.
So until what week would you claim that a fetus (Latin for "unborn child") "isn't alive"? To set an outer limit, starting at about week 26, the baby is obviously alive because it can be born and nursed to health in a neonatal ICU.
While I haven't thoroughly read the quantum brain proposals, everything I have read makes me think it's all pretty silly stuff. Proponents of the ideas seem to think that since there's no clear way that neurons can produce consciousness, that it must be a quantum effect, without ever showing how that actually helps at all (as far as I have seen).
In my mind, the analogy is roughly:
string theory:physics::quantum consciousness:neuroscience
But really, that's giving quantum consciousness theories too much credit. That may just be personal bias, given that my own research is at a neural network level so I just have a tendency to assume that a lot of things can be explained at that level, many of which are yet to come, I expect. But I suppose they ought to carry on with their quantum consciousness research, just in case it does end up being true (or at the very least it might end up making a prediction that someone can test).
No child is unwanted. There are thousands of couples who are waiting to adopt your baby; what they lack in fertility they have in loving kindness.
What if almost every widely available brand of beef is contaminated with pork byproducts due to being hung on the same meat hooks? I'm just glad that there's one brand that still "answer[s] to a higher authority".
You seem to imply that the church of Rome follows the teachings of the Bible. Then how do you explain what's said in I Timothy 3? A bishop should be married
What Paul is saying is that a bishop shouldn't be a married to more than one woman (i.e. divorced and remarried). Paul says that a bishop should be "beyond reproach", and includes being married to one woman in a list of non-reproachful characteristics. If a bishop were married to more than one woman, then he wouldn't be "beyond reproach". Paul isn't saying that a bishop has to be married, because otherwise that would mean that it's reproachful to be single, which is clearly not the case. Besides, Paul himself was unmarried, so by your logic, he shouldn't have had authority in the Church.
1 Tim 3:2-3
Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher, no drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and no lover of money.
if he has no experience in handling a family he isn't able to handle a church.
No, Paul says that if he can't handle his own family, then he wouldn't be able to handle a church.
1 Tim 3:4-5
He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way; for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he care for God's church?
Yet the "bishop" of Rome has always been an unmarried man
No, some of the first bishops, including the first Pope (Peter) were married.
Paul of Tarsus himself urged people to marry, because otherwise they could fall in temptation.
He says that if you can't control yourself, then you should get married. But he also says that if you want to serve God, it's better to remain celibate like Paul.
1 Corinthians 7:7-9
For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
1 Corinthians 7:32-33
But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.
Jesus also recommends celibacy:
Matthew 19:12
For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
The church of Rome insists on not following Paul's teachings. A consequence of that is that the church is a haven for pederasts, as proved by several cases judged in courts of justice.
Since pederasts tend to be homosexuals, I don't think getting married would help them to avoid that particular sin. The problem is not with celibacy (there have been similar cases among Protestants, for instance), but rather with the tendency starting in the 1960s to allow unsuitable men to become priests. But things have been improving ever since John Paul II became Pope.
If they insist that artificial contraceptive methods are sinful, they cannot have artificial death prevention methods either.
One obvious difference is that the first prevents a good thing, and the other prevents a bad thing.
Anyway, contraceptives are used to explicitly reject the whole reason for having sex in the first place. Sex is for two things: producing children, and uniting the husband and wife. The use of contraceptives implies both a rejection of the children that sex would produce, and also a rejection of one's spouse. One is supposed to give oneself fully to one's spouse, but contraceptives imply that you're holding back the reproductive aspect of yourself, and rejectin
They've apparently discovered one of the processes stemming from the ultimate make. I mean, here's God doing 'make -j$infinity' on a human genome source tree, and 31 days into the actual build, this happens. Interesting. I think.
This sig no verb.
"In Spinochordodes tellinii, which has grasshoppers as its vector, the infection acts on the grasshopper's brain and causes it to seek water and drown itself, thus returning the nematomorph to water." Hah! Thats' what the end of "400 Blows" means! ^^
60% of this thread is occupied by the Abortion debate.
Thanks for that answer! It was exactly what my brain was looking for.
Hrm.. Article seems to have a very misleading title. The neuron depicted in the
image certainly has nothing to do with thinking; It clearly has very little if any
dendrites, although it does have a clearly definable axon, and thus this is a unipolar
neuron, already known to exist in embryonic tissue!
Neuron types
It doesn't article seem to be very groundbreaking work, however it does seem to jive well
with the function of the Cajal-Retzius cells found in Layer 1 of the cerebral cortex. It is
probable that these cells mature into Cajal-Retzius cells, or perform a similar function
earlier in development.
Non sequitur: Your facts are uncoordinated.
Since pederasts tend to be homosexuals
FYI this is false. Heterosexual men are vastly more likely to abuse children (including boys) than homosexual men.
Unfortunately, fetal experimentation will be against the law so when they test it on mice, mice _will_ be the most intelligent species on earth.
an adult fly is said to have about 100.000 neurons, so If you want to identify human life by the initial development of a handfull of neurons ..
Because those people did not ever try or know the real effects of weed; it's a never-ending-battle. For one it's good and for the other it's bad. I'd rather want weed to be legal instead of alcohol; I know what alcohol does (have seen enough of it in my family) and I sure also know it breaks more than smoking a joint or bong ...
.. right? heh
... I don't like such superficial bullshittery...
It's the ignorance (yet again) and the thougth "its the best thing to do for everyone" although such thinking leads to both more use in cigarettes and alcohol because it IS legal: it must be better than drugs
I wish I could be more responsible of myself instead of being born with hunderds of rules to protect "myself" against harm; while the real harm (alcohol etc..) is still out there
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
I agree. They seem to be lazy today. Could be the heat, I guess. But aren't there some moderators Iceland? They could mod you up.
(Context: experimentation on embryos -> abortion -> abortion vs. capital punishment -> innocence vs. guilt -> original sin)
Christian teachers are divided in their interpretation of this scripture, as to whether or not God the Most Merciful extends forgiveness to those who have not had a chance to understand sin. Consider this scripture:
You may find a further analysis interesting.