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.
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.
"pro life" and "pro choice" people are talking past each other anyway. Pro lifers believe everything with the potential for becoming life (zygote onwards in some cases) should be protected, while pro choicers believe things that only things which would be viable life forms outside of the womb should be protected.
This discovery means nothing in this debate, because the basic concept of what constitutes life (potential life versus viable life) is not affected. Sure, some pro life groups may choose to add this to their stable of propaganda, but it probably isn't going to change the debate in any meaningful way.
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.
...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?
How do you accuse the pro-lifers of trying to push their religious beliefs on other people if they are using science to justify their position?
Right below the post about people "talking passed each other", and you come up with the perfect example of it. I'm not religious, and I'm not really pro-life (I am one of the 9 people in this country who is neither pro-life nor pro-choice... I consider myself a populist on this particular subject.) Religious people aren't "pushing their beliefs on you". That's a fear-mongering tactic used by one side. That's basically equal to asking if you like killing babies. The fundamental question is when does life begin. That's a question that every society must answer. Everyone agrees that killing a person is wrong. The question becomes.. when does society agree that this is, in fact, a person. Pretending pro-life is about a bunch of religious zealots trying to push their religion on you completely and utterly misses the point. It's bordering on an ad hominem fallacy, to be sure.
This is no more about religious belief as it is about believing in freedom. Everyone believes you should be free to do with your body what you want, and everyone believes that murder should be wrong. The disagreement is when does "your body" become "their body". If you think you have an answer to that question, that defines which side of the line you are on. Adding any of the rest of this tagentially related strawmen (you hate women! you murder babies! religious freak! promiscious whore!) to the picture just inflames the situation and destroys conversation.
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
The fundamental question is when does life begin. That's a question that every society must answer. Everyone agrees that killing a person is wrong.
No, no, no.
Most human societies throughout most of history have had accepted practices for getting rid of unwanted children. These practices usually involved some form of infanticide. Almost everyone almost everywhere agrees that the practice of killing infants is sometimes justified. The Jews were notable exceptions in the ancient world, and were considered weird by the Romans because of it.
So let's not start the debate with trivial falsehoods.
Nor has there ever been any doubt about or question about when "life begins" in societies that practice infanticide. The modern Indian or Chinese peasents who allow female children to die are not in any doubt as to the fact that their children are alive! What they are in doubt about is how valuable those lives are. That has been the fundamental question in most human societies throughout most of history.
Nor is it the case that "everyone agrees that killing a person is wrong." The obvious counter-example, alluded to in other replies, are advocates of capital punishment.
Stripped on the lies and dishonesty that colour the picture on both sides of the fence, the question regarding abortion is this: Should a mother be allowed by society to choose to end her child's life in early pregnancy? I believe any humane invidual who is aware of the social realities will eventually realize that the answer to this question is clearly, yes. Killing an unwanted child is not a good thing. But giving birth to an unwanted child is a far, far greater evil. And taking the choice away from the adult whose life and body are most greatly affected by the decision, and who can reasonably be assumed to have the child's well-being more strongly in her mind than anyone else, is the greatest evil of all.
But so long as the debate is clouded by irrelevant non-questions like, "Is a zygote alive?" there will be no resolution. Of course a zygote is alive. Only an idiot would suggest otherwise. Every single cell in our bodies is alive, and with sufficient technological intervention it is quite likely that some day every single one of them will be a "potential human being." So long as the debate centres around this kind of nonsense rather than the real question of how or whether to practice infanticide in the modern world, it will just be a lot of pointless noise.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.