Scientists Create Sheep That Are 15 Percent Human

anthemaniac writes "Professor Esmail Zanjani and colleagues at the University of Nevada-Reno have created sheep that are 15 percent human at the cellular level. Half the organs in the sheep are human. The idea, of course, is to harvest those organs to transplant into human patients. From the article: 'He has already created a sheep liver which has a large proportion of human cells and eventually hopes to precisely match a sheep to a transplant patient, using their own stem cells to create their own flock of sheep.' One scientists worries, however, that the work could lead to new viruses that cross from animals to humans."

Comments

This worries me

[Harmonious Botch]

I can't figure out if it means we'll have more republicans or more democrats, but either way it worries me.

Re:This worries me

[Arkus]

Either this sounds like a bahhhhhd idea to me! ;)

Re:This worries me

[anagama]

More republicans as they tend to be more religious ("sheep") ...Hmmm. The whole stem cell thing however suggests more Democrats. But after becoming sheep, perhaps heathen Democrats will become bible banger Republicans. Of course, they might then suffer such cognitive dissonance that they'd commit suicide leading to more Democrats. But then suicide is a sin .... this is hard to calculate. Oh wait, no need. Contraception is a sin. We're doomed to be overrun by the uber-religious no matter how human the sheep become.

Re:This worries me

[Anonymous Coward]

That sounds like democrat talk!

Re:This worries me

[no_pets]

Sheeple

Re:This worries me

[errxn]

Either that, or more journalists. I hear that they're about 15% human.

Re:This worries me

[NMerriam]

Are there really so many atheists on the internet

it is admittedly disproportionate representation, since the true believers are still checking the Bible to figure out which of the Internets to sign up for.

Re:This worries me

[cheater512]

Maybe what you call 'FUD' is just common sense (which religious people dont have).

Re:This worries me

[had3l]

Hah, in Soviet Russia, humans are 100% sheep.

Re:This worries me

[Frumious Wombat]

Neither. They'll all have matching black wool and berets, and become fine-arts majors expressing their individuality.

Re:This worries me

[Roskolnikov]

Nicerette for cannibals.......
85% less human.
free range.

or for the perverse, my little love pony.

Re:This worries me

[Tteddo]

Now THAT was a good one!

Re:This worries me

[FatdogHaiku]

You can see those at Walmart. The first week of the month is migration time.

Re:This worries me

[Thexare Blademoon]

Ok, perhaps I shouldn't waste my time, but some of us atheists don't waste our time arguing with religious people, and we would appreciate not being stereotyped.

The atheists that you are complaining about sound very much like the Christian fanatics that I occasionally complain about - the difference being that I know not all Christians are that way, while you don't appear to acknowledge this about atheists.

Re:This worries me

[ArsonSmith]

"My god!! What are you doing to that sheep!?!"

"It's ok it's more than 15% human."

"Sweet, can I have a try then next?"

Re:This worries me

[Thexare Blademoon]

I think I should've picked my wording better. I want an edit link :(

Re:This worries me

[MindDelay]

the united states is right up there with you.

Re:This worries me

[Mr2cents]

Why don't you ask your sheppard?

Re:This worries me

[gripen40k]

By journalists you mean half-human buffalo herders right?

Re:This worries me

[Pharmboy]

In a related story, the University of Arkansas has announced a new breakthrough when they found two new uses for sheep:

Food and wool. ;)

Re:This worries me

[Unnngh!]

I guess Bush was actually informed on an issue for once. It still made me laugh when I heard it the first five times though...

Re:This worries me

[bigred85]

Damn you, now I have to clean beer out of my laptop screen.

However my hat is off to you for the sheer brilliance of that statement.

Kudos to you.

Re:This worries me

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm all for this, as long as it's the right 15%, if you know what I mean.

Re:This worries me

[aristotle-dude]

Are there really so many atheists on the internet

it is admittedly disproportionate representation, since the true believers are still checking the Bible to figure out which of the Internets to sign up for. Right, so that would mean that you are talking to yourselves? Stupidity tends to be the result of a combination of genetic factors and upbringing where the former tends to have the most pronounced effect. It has nothing to do with what you believe in. The internet is an echo chamber where the emptiest pots make the most noise. This is precisely what I was was trying to get at. The most vocal atheists on the internet also seem to have the least amount of personal knowledge of the religions they attack. The fear you feel right now is fuelled by your own ignorance.

Re:This worries me

[tm2b]

Well, to be fair. Jesus Christ did, over and over, use the sheep metaphor to apply to, well, his "flock" and that imagery continues through many flavors of christianity. Catholic priests, for example, often talk about their "flock" and paints behaving as meek as sheep as a virtue.

So it isn't necessarily a hostility toward religion that would cause one to apply the label "sheep" to a religion that borrows the image itself.

Re:This worries me

[scruffy]

Nyet, in Soviet Russia, 15% sheep are humans.

Re:This worries me

[JimDaGeek]

Hey, I agree. Most of American journalism is total crap. However, we at least have one news source we can trust. ;-)

Re:This worries me

[billsoxs]

I read this and all I could think of was the saying about Wyoming. Wyoming - where the men are men and the sheep are scared. I guess the sheep in Wyoming are MORE then 15% human in that case. (Yeah Wyoming IS a nice place - I did not makeup the saying so chill.)

Re:This worries me

[Fordiman]

Chill. I doubt he fears you or your arguments - especially that they seem to come from a sense of frustration.

And it's true. Mostly, atheists are talking to each other when making logical arguments against religion - mostly to provide each of us with "make the proseltyzer feel stupid so he'll leave me alone" ammo.

Most of us realize that you'll drop the imaginary friend in your own time, or maybe you won't; either way, nothing we say will change it. For that segment of us, it's to create a bullet-proof anti-preacher sheild. What fun is it, for example, to be told you're going to hell if you don't have a good argument as to why hell probably doesn't exist?

That said, the majority of us aren't really looking for an argument. We know arguments happen; we're quite outnumbered in the world, and it's very hard to keep the fact that you don't actually believe in God to yourself. You know. It comes up - and nine times out of ten, when it does, you end up getting the third degree by someone who was satisfied with 'Because God made it that way' for their whole lives or the 'flavor of the month' theist who is newly converted and wants to share (read: force) her new insights with you. Initially, argument prep is self-defence, though it often migrates to preemptive defense and outright flaming.

We should be more mature than that, and in fact, most of us are. It's just that, like any group, you get the teenagers and the adults who never left high school who are so damned sure of themselves that they can't be bothered to respect the choices of others.

I try to reprimand my fellow atheists occasionally when they step out of line; responses to insane proseltyzing that includes threats of damnation don't get rebuffed, but once in a while you'll get the genuinely curious question about atheism and the vitrolic atheist auto-reponse - and I'll shoot that down every time.

I can't moderate all the 'fuck God!' posts. I'd go crazy. But I just want to let you know that most of us aren't actually like that. We're good, normal people who just happen to not believe in a deity or deities.

Re:This worries me

[Torvaun]

I'm waiting for lawsuits with the defense: "It's only 85% bestiality!"

Re:This worries me

[rtb61]

Added to that is of course, give the believers a break, well at least the ones that can respect alternate choices.

Believers obviously need the support that religion provides to get through the daily lives, the random chance of daily misfortune obviously creates an excessive psychological burden which they need to alleviate.

Some people do require that additional support and just like a person struggling with a broken leg, it is really not socially acceptable to enjoy kicking their crutches out from underneath them.

Hey what ever thoughts, ideas, and beliefs get you through what can be at times a pretty frustrating, contrary and annoying life, cool ;).

Re:This worries me

[rjshields]

Are there really so many atheists on the internet

Yes, and average intelligence is supposedly higher amongst internet users than the population as a whole. Co-incidence?

Re:This worries me

[rjshields]

The fear you feel right now is fuelled by your own ignorance.

...and the voices you hear telling you to kill the evil non-believers are not real!!!!1

Re:This worries me

[AikonMGB]

Atheist is assuming a bit much, isn't it? Maybe the word you wanted to start with was "agnostic".. hmm?

Aikon-

Re:This worries me

[Mr. Competence]

Yes.

Correlation does not imply causation. :P

Re:This worries me

[AGMW]

... still, mutton grumble eh.

Re:This worries me

[TapeCutter]

"Believers obviously need the support that religion provides to get through the daily lives, the random chance of daily misfortune obviously creates an excessive psychological burden which they need to alleviate.

To me a zelot is a zelot, the particular dogma they are pushing is almost irrelevant. Atheisim is also a "religion" in the sense that it asserts a negative hypothisis that cannot be tested. The belief in a random (or clockwork) Universe provides the crutch that ulitmately "you are not to blame". I think everyone needs a "crutch" to fall back on lest we go crazy trying to explain our own existance, let alone trying to find meaning in it. When it comes to god's existance I simply explain to my many religious friends that I believe the "Universe just is" in the same way they believe "god just is".

Re:This worries me

[pnutjam]

The metaphor Jesus used was more about the Shepherd then the sheep. Because sheep are so stupid Shepherds are known to go to great lengths to care for them. I've never heard anybody preach that we should be sheep, only that we should care for others like a Shepherd cares for his sheep. It's hard not to assume your misinterpretation is malicious or deliberate, but I realize your level of discomfort with this topic probably makes it difficult for you to understand so I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

Re:This worries me

[apathy maybe]

You can't moderate this post either. 'Cause you posted. (Of course if I had mod points I could ..., but only 'cause I'm a coward.)

FUCK GOD! Real geeks who want an imaginary friend believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

Re:This worries me

[apathy maybe]

I'm a stupid coward too. (Wonders where the tick box got to ...)

Re:This worries me

[DerangedAlchemist]

Yes.

Correlation does not imply causation. :P Correlation does not always imply causation. Causation will always show correlation, just not the other way around.

Re:This worries me

[Decaff]

Atheisim is also a "religion" in the sense that it asserts a negative hypothisis that cannot be tested.

This does not make sense. We are all effectively asserting negative hypotheses all the time. For example, when my car goes wrong, I take it to a garage to be fixed. I am asserting the negative hypothesis that the car runs mechanically and not by magic. Does that make me religious?

Re:This worries me

[DieNadel]

Actually, it's your comment that does not make sense. Your car runs mechanically and you (or at least someone) can prove that.

You cannot prove or disprove God or any other deity. Even the Bible does not try to rule other deities out, it just states that they are not the true creator.

Re:This worries me

[Hrodvitnir]

The most vocal opponents of anything tend not to have adequate knowledge of that which they attack. Arguing about it on the internet is still useless.

Re:This worries me

[Anonymous Coward]

oh so they are 'false' creators - and what exactly does that mean?

Re:This worries me

[xelah]

You cannot prove or disprove God or any other deity.

It's not in principle impossible to disprove particular religions, to a good standard of evidence. Look, for instance, at the evidence concerning the age of the Earth. Or imagine being able to examine Jesus's and his family's DNA (we can't /actually/ do that, but that doesn't make it in principle impossible). Of course, the religious then 'reinterpret' their religion in some way - essentially coming up with a new religion which asserts a subtly different hypothesis.

There's a huge leap from asserting that a God exists to asserting that God exists and has human emotions, can listen to everyone's thoughts simultaneously, can do the otherwise physically impossible whenever he wishes and knows everything that is or ever has been. (As an aside: Just thing what that last one implies about the complexity of whatever structure God uses to store this knowledge; presumably God is supposed to know the precise position and momentum of every particle in the Universe; this isn't something you could store and retrieve even if you tried to USE the position and momentum of every particle in the Universe to store it).

Re:This worries me

[mojine]

Sheep are those who are suckered into the pro wrestling-style Red vs. Blue political arguments. Voting Republican or Democrat is equivelant to flipping a coin to see who fucks you next ...

Re:This worries me

[C0y0t3]

Trying to prove or disprove the existence of a diety is intellectual masturbation. So stop it, or you could go mentally blind.

You can't prove/disprove Santa Claus, either. But damned if my stocking doesn't get filled every Jesus' Birthday morning, just like the Bible predicts. And I think the Easter Baskets go without saying, eh?

Re:This worries me

[Dread_ed]

Until people realize that the belief system they choose is inexorably tied to their ego they will be vulnerable to the temptations of over-proselytizing.

For most strong believers their entire self concept is wrapped up in not only their belief in God/no god, but also in the necessity of having others see them as a good little christian/properly angsty atheist, etc.

In other words, many people are dependent on how they appear to others in order to feel fulfilled with their own beliefs. You see this in the atheists you describe that constantly reveal their unbelief in an attempt to get into arguments. You also see it in the Christians who assault you with pleas for your salvation and threats of eternal damnation and who are all too ready to argue back. Both are annoying to people for the overt reasons of their actions, but more subtly so because we recognize the sophomoric attention-getting mechanisms they use to satisfy their egos.

An argument is only a reflection of an ego that needs stroking to feel fulfilled. It is the outward manifestattion of someone who is looking for both positive and negative reinforcement. If you really care about what you believe, and therefore want other people to believe it too, then avoid confrontation. The fastest way to get somone to listen to what you believe in is to ask them about what they believe and listen.

If one progresses past this juvenile stage epitomized by the constant search for justification for beliefs from others (through acceptance of peers or through rejection of those who are antagonistic), most people will settle into a either apathy, bitterness, or a sense of self-fulfillment.

It sounds like you have found the self-fulfillment option and I commend you. It is usually the most rewarding outcome.

Re:This worries me

[Fordiman]

Generally, educated atheists express the concept of God in terms of a low probability, which can be shown logically.

Conversely, uneducated atheists are, in a way, religious, in that they believe something that flies in the face of common wisdom without having an argument to show whether or not their belief is likely.

For example, I don't believe there are unicorns living below Mars' crust. I can't prove they're not there, but I can state how likely they are to be. Because that probability is very low, I can behave in a way that assumes they do not exist.

Re:This worries me

[Decaff]

Generally, educated atheists express the concept of God in terms of a low probability, which can be shown logically.

I think this is just pandering to the religious. There is no sensible or logical way to determine the probability of God anyway.

Conversely, uneducated atheists are, in a way, religious, in that they believe something that flies in the face of common wisdom without having an argument to show whether or not their belief is likely.

No, this is not true. It can be argued that the default position is atheism. Anyway, atheism is not a belief. It the absence of belief.

Re:This worries me

[Decaff]

Actually, it's your comment that does not make sense. Your car runs mechanically and you (or at least someone) can prove that.

That is irrelevant. We know how evolution works, and we can explain how it can happen by itself, but that does not stop some people claiming that God intervenes. Same with the car - we know how it works, but that would not stop someone still claiming that magic was involved somewhere.

Re:This worries me

[TapeCutter]

Philosophy is more than a bad car analogy my freind.

Put another way it requires faith to "know" god does or does not exist, "I don't know but I believe XYZ" is the only intellectually honest answer anyone can give to the question of god's existance.

In the everyday world this boils down to a redundant god (or gods) since the expression "the Universe just is" is functionally identical to "god just is".

Re:This worries me

[DieNadel]

We know how evolution works, and we can explain how it can happen by itself, but that does not stop some people claiming that God intervenes. Can you explain and prove how life started on Earth? Can you prove that God did not influence the process?

I cannot prove that God intervenes in evolution, but you can't prove otherwise either. And even though we know how evolution works, there are plenty of it that had a small chance of happening. I can't prove that is God's work, though I believe on that, but you can't prove it's not.

You may well say that was purely by chance, and you are entitled this belief. But it's your feeling (i.e. how you see it) and not a proof.

Re:This worries me

[Decaff]

Philosophy is more than a bad car analogy my freind.

Put another way it requires faith to "know" god does or does not exist, "I don't know but I believe XYZ" is the only intellectually honest answer anyone can give to the question of god's existance.

This is unclear thinking, and philosophically empty.

Atheism is not a belief. It is absense of belief. It is the default position. We are all atheists about (at least) an infinite number of things. I don't believe in the great god Flang Splut. Neither do you. But we don't believe in him not because you can't prove he exists, but for a better reason... you don't have a belief in him at all. Why? Because you had not even heard of him. This is why atheism is the default position. It is also not philosophically sensible to try and get around this by claiming that as soon as you heard of this new god, you then immediately developed a faith in his absense. That is absurd. You life is not now filled with a new powerful faith; instead, you will simply not bother thinking about him.

What you are confusing is atheism and what we might call 'anti-theism'. The first is absense of a belief, the second is positive belief or faith in an absense. They are certainly not the same thing.

Re:This worries me

[Decaff]

I cannot prove that God intervenes in evolution, but you can't prove otherwise either.

I don't need to prove otherwise. If, as we are now sure, evolution is a random process of natural selection, there is simply no need for a God to be involved. If there is no need, it is pointless to try and prove he wasn't involved - it is a waste of time, as the idea of a God intervening has no usefulness and explains nothing. We can just forget about it. It is as pointless to even think about it as it would be to imagine that evolution was controlled by, say, fairies. God is excess to requirements in this, so the only intellectually honest thing to do is to forget about the idea.

And even though we know how evolution works, there are plenty of it that had a small chance of happening.

This is irrelevant. It is like shuffling a deck of cards. Any particular arrangement of cards has a small chance of appearing, but some arrangement had to appear.

And if this were not the case, it is no evidence for intervention.

You may well say that was purely by chance, and you are entitled this belief. But it's your feeling (i.e. how you see it) and not a proof.

No, it is not just a feeling. There is overwhelming evidence for it.

Re:This worries me

[DieNadel]

If, as we are now sure, evolution is a random process of natural selection, there is simply no need for a God to be involved. You say it's random, I say it's God involvement. You can't prove that we evolved by lucky, and I can't prove that God helped the process. That's my point.

It is as pointless to even think about it as it would be to imagine that evolution was controlled by, say, fairies. Some people may believe that fairies controlled the evolution, and I can't dispute that (and neither can you) because you cannot disprove fairies (or the Flying Spaghetti Monster). You see my point again? If you can't disprove someone's beliefs, than you can't bash it (but you can disagree, though). This is tolerance.

This is irrelevant. It is like shuffling a deck of cards. Any particular arrangement of cards has a small chance of appearing, but some arrangement had to appear. How many particular arrangements would be useful on a deck so large as the one that represents evolution? What are the odds that something alive comes out of these arrangements?

And if this were not the case, it is no evidence for intervention. It's no evidence for denying it either.

No, it is not just a feeling. There is overwhelming evidence for it. Evidence proving that all this happened by chance?! Please show me the evidence.

Re:This worries me

[Anonymous Coward]

infect

Speak for yourself. I sure as fuck hope no one thinks I'm normal... egads...

Some people have the psychological fortitude to take responsibility for their own actions (non-believer), and some simply need a crutch to help them (believer).

Re:This worries me

[Decaff]

You can't prove that we evolved by lucky, and I can't prove that God helped the process. That's my point.

Doesn't matter at all. One has to prove the more complex case, not the simpler one. If we can explain it by 'lucky', then it is up to you to explain. The two explanations aren't of equal merit, so your point has no substance.

You see my point again? If you can't disprove someone's beliefs, than you can't bash it (but you can disagree, though). This is tolerance.

There should be no tolerance for beliefs that get in the way of rational decisions. A belief that God was involved in evolution leads to many problematic attitudes. And, to be honest, I am getting fed up with tolerating irrational beliefs that attack science and rationality. We have been tolerant for too long while irrationality has grown in power, and now (even here in the UK) is starting to try and get influence in politics and in the education of our children.

I am also getting fed up with tired and intellectually barren 'well you can't prove God doesn't exist' argument, which almost everyone who uses it thinks is new and clever. It is an argument with no merit, as we all effectively believe that an infinite number of things don't exist, if only because we live our lives as if they don't. It is up to those who want to add a potentially infinitely complex extra factor to the universe - a God - to prove it, not those who express the simpler point of view.

But if you wish to persist in this argument, I claim that evolution is random because the Devil keeps jogging God's hand as he fiddles with life. So, if you want to claim that God intervenes, you are going to have to disprove my Devil hypothesis....

How many particular arrangements would be useful on a deck so large as the one that represents evolution? What are the odds that something alive comes out of these arrangements?

Well, we can get something that is close to living pretty much spontaneously anyway, with RNA in test tubes. We get molecules arising that mutate and evolve spontaneously. So, I would say that the odds are pretty good.

But this is irrelevant, as any good philosopher or theologian will tell you. What are the odds of an immensely complex all-powerful intelligent being arising that could control evolution? The answer is clear - far, far less than the any odds of evolution. To explain something complex using something even more complex is just plain silly.

It's no evidence for denying it either.

Yes, actually, it is. If you look around and don't see something, most rational people would consider that as evidence that nothing is there.

Evidence proving that all this happened by chance?! Please show me the evidence.

I suggest you read books by Charles Darwin. The evidence and reasoning is very clearly (and beautifully) described there. There is a newer version of one of his books by Steve Jones - 'Almost like a Whale' - you might find that helpful.

Please could you provide evidence that an immensely complicated all-powerful being could spontaneously arise?

Re:This worries me

[TapeCutter]

"What you are confusing is atheism and what we might call 'anti-theism'. The first is absense of a belief, the second is positive belief or faith in an absense. They are certainly not the same thing."

Hmmm, I looked it up with a google "define: atheism" and got this from princeton (top of the list)...

1. The doctrine or belief that there is no God. (your "anti-theism")
2. A lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. (your "atheisim")

While I agree they are not the "same thing", I think it's fairly clear there are two sub-categories of atheist, I think I can safely say my comment implies type #1, at the very least the word "know" should have given the reader a strong clue.

"This is unclear thinking, and philosophically empty."

I see your insult and raise you a snarky remark about your comprehension skills and Horatio. ;)

Re:This worries me

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, actually, it is. If you look around and don't see something, most rational people would consider that as evidence that nothing is there.

Can you spell "GERMS"? :-)

I suggest you read books by Charles Darwin. The evidence and reasoning is very clearly (and beautifully) described there. There is a newer version of one of his books by Steve Jones - 'Almost like a Whale' - you might find that helpful.

Done that (at least the Darwin part). He does not explain lucky mutations.

Please could you provide evidence that an immensely complicated all-powerful being could spontaneously arise?

You are getting into the same discussion again. So I ask you: can you disprove it? (just to feed this fire)

Re:This worries me

[DieNadel]

I think we could argue forever and will never settle on one or another position.

I just want to add something to your comment:

But if you wish to persist in this argument, I claim that evolution is random because the Devil keeps jogging God's hand as he fiddles with life. So, if you want to claim that God intervenes, you are going to have to disprove my Devil hypothesis.... If someone wants to believe in that, that's all OK. I don't have to disprove your "Devil hypothesis" because I don't contest it, even though I don't believe in it. It's tolerance again.

Re:This worries me

[Decaff]

I think we could argue forever and will never settle on one or another position.

I believe there is hope :)

I don't have to disprove your "Devil hypothesis" because I don't contest it, even though I don't believe in it. It's tolerance again.

Ah, but if you believe that a God has influence over evolution, you do have to contest it, surely?

Re:This worries me

[Decaff]

While I agree they are not the "same thing", I think it's fairly clear there are two sub-categories of atheist, I think I can safely say my comment implies type #1, at the very least the word "know" should have given the reader a strong clue.

This is a good point, and caused all sorts of problems in such discussions. I actually think there are even more sorts of atheism! A third version is a belief that a belief in God is pointless and useless. It is a belief that the idea of a God is irrelevant; effectively putting the matter aside.

I see your insult and raise you a snarky remark about your comprehension skills and Horatio. ;)

Heh. If you think that is an insult, you should really see me when I get going :)

I was really not trying to insult - I was trying to point out that some arguments in this area don't achieve anything and lead nowhere.

Re:This worries me

[Decaff]

Can you spell "GERMS"? :-)

Can you spell "MICROSCOPE"? :)

Even with a microscope, we don't see God.

The germ analogy is a good one, but for me too. People claimed to have seen/experienced God before telescopes and microscopes. So, presumably God is not undetectable or invisible like germs were then (because if he was, then, by definition, no-one could have known about him - unless, of course, he was imaginary).

You are getting into the same discussion again. So I ask you: can you disprove it? (just to feed this fire)

Disprove what? I could (given time) list an infinite number of deities, all but one of which (I assume) you don't believe in. I am guessing you aren't going to ask me to disprove God number 23, or God number 99,232,872, or many others. So why should I bother disproving your God?

Re:This worries me

[Fordiman]

I apologize, you and he seem to misunderstand how natural selection works. It's not a random process; it's a directed process (towards survival) that effectively feeds off randomness as a source of energy.

Think about how a bridge rectifier works: normally, they're used for the purpose of converting AC current into DC, however, the input voltage can be completely random, and it would still produce DC current.

Similarly, if a self-replicating molecule (SRM) is modified (ie: damaged by environmental effects) in a way that causes it not to survive, or that causes its progeny to fail to survive or replicate, that SRM form doesn't continue to appear in its environment.

Similarly, it's not 'survival of the fittest', as is always quoted. It's 'continuance of the survivors' - as many 'fit' survivors coexist easily, and the 'fittest' only comes into play when there is competition for survival resources (food, shelter, etc).

In short, the only two truly random occurences in the creation of life were these two: first, the start of natural selection itself by the formation of the first self-replicating molecules. These proto-beasties are pretty common occurrences in primordial earth models, so I won't be bothering my lucky stars about them.

The other one is the particular configuration of creature mankind ended up in; with the only directive in natural selection being survival, sentient life could have evolved into any biologically based form, depending on the conditions that surrounded its growth.

Of course, this guarantees a few things, the most important of which is that, if there's a cosmologically earth-like plantet out there (ie: the same amount of stellar radiation falling on a body of similar mass that started out as a lava-ball), there is very likely to be life on it in one form or another. The other is that eventually, any sentient life will become intellignet enough to speculate on its own origins, yet pass through a phase where they're stupid enough to figure they were built by something else.

Re:This worries me

[Fordiman]

"I think this is just pandering to the religious. There is no sensible or logical way to determine the probability of God anyway."

If you go read "The God Delusion", I believe Richard Dawkins might contest your point. Indeed, that's where most of the below argument comes from - in spirit, if not in wording. Just so you know, mentioning his name alone is a good way to piss theists off, mostly because I've never seen a one refute his logic. I don't know if it's because they can't actually read such a long book, or because his arguments are bulletproof.

"No, this is not true. It can be argued that the default position is atheism. Anyway, atheism is not a belief. It the absence of belief."

That really depends on how you come to it. The rational atheist can state, with a finite amount of certainty, how unlikely the concept of God is. The irrational atheist cannot, and can rather only state that there is no God.

The difference, of course, is that without a certain amount of study on the subject, you can't say with honesty both that there is no God and that you don't believe as far as deitys go. If you say there is no God, you're stating a belief, as it can't be proven that there is not. However, by showing that God is about as probable as the tooth faerie, you've shown that it's not a belief, but a logical conclusion.

As with most things, dealing in absolutes is asking for trouble; the argument from probability usually shuts up the "But you can't prove it!" douchebags, as you've already headed off their argument by doing a little investigation.

Re:This worries me

[Fordiman]

Well...

That brings the conversation to the concept of rational anarchy - that you're free to do as you please, but that your actions may carry consequences for which you are responsible (read 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress' by Robert A. Heinlein).

For some reason, there is a greater proportion of rational anarchy among atheists than theists, but as they say in statistics, correlation is not always statistically significant. Apply such correlations to people, and you're just stereotyping.

Re:This worries me

[TapeCutter]

"I was really not trying to insult - I was trying to point out that some arguments in this area don't achieve anything and lead nowhere."

Insult is the wrong word. And I agree that arguments about god's existance are, as another post put it, "mental masterbation".

Re:This worries me

[Anonymous Coward]

So is there a cutoff threshold for your belief system after which point you will say "such and such does not exist"?

Alternately, do you believe in homeopathy?

Re:This worries me

[Fordiman]

It's not a matter of belief, that's rather the point. There is probable and improbable (and astronomically improbable, as is the case of God). Saying otherwise is more or less intellectually dishonest.

I think homeopathy resides in the 50% area, but only because I haven't investigated it sufficiently to know where it would lay on the curve. Our entire medical and pharmacological industries operate off drugs that are, by and large, plant-based. The idea that herbs and plants could be used with medical or psycological benefits thus has a founding upon which to start looking for evidence of beneficial effects. Indeed, I believe the FDA is investigating a number of pharmaceuticals at present which are based upon what have been determined to be the active ingrdients in the homeopathic equvalents.

That's for herbal healing, of course. Crystal healing is very probably psychosomatic. I can, with almost complete certainty, say that salt-rock deoderants are a joke; they don't work at all on me, and their effect on others - well, lets just say my nose feels it's questionable.

Then there's faith-healing. When used in a way that denies medical treatment, I feel this is actually cruel - using an improbable method with undeterminable results in favor over established practices with known results. That's the results of people who care for their faith over their own or their loved ones' health, and I feel it's retarded behavior.

Not a problem, though. Gets them out of the gene pool.

Re:This worries me

[Anonymous Coward]

There is good evidence for the placebo effect. It undergoes constant scrutiny and retesting, and the expected values (arithmetic mean, median and two standard deviations in various populations) have held up well over the past couple of decades. The placebo effect is receiving especially strong restudy now in the aftermath of a May 2001 NEJM publication of a metastudy of studies that considered placebo versus no drug control groups. In the vast majority of these studies, placebo's averages were not significantly different from no drug's. (This mainly suggests that placebos are a good experimental control, but are of no clinical value for prescribing doctors, and is of interest to health regulators with authority over placebo cough and cold preparations and so forth.)

Just to reiterate: drug reactions are measured against placebo control groups, and statistical significance is key when considering differences between the experimental and control groups. No statistically significant effect can be neatly summarized as "no effect", and the technical difference between the two is immaterial.

Homeopathy is not herbal medicine (or essential oils). The latter produces statistically significant results experimentally. Most criticism of herbal medicine (and essential oils) is that mechanisms are more complicated in preparations from plants because lots of plant and environmental substances are retained with the active ingredient in even the most careful processes, compared to synthetic manufacture of the active ingredient itself. Also, the active ingredients can be ensemble groups of chemicals, and have wildly varying ratios depending on where and when the source organisms were cultivated. Finally, there is simply less in advance analytical chemistry applied to herbal preparations than in those synthesized in labs.

The two principles of homeopathy are: like-cures-like (i.e., take a substance which creates symptoms similar to those of a patient's complaint) and dilution.

Like-cures-like does not work outside of vaccination and direct innoculation to trigger active immune responses. When the substances are different (belladonna extract (atropine) is used as a remedy for acute sinus infection by organisms such as S. aureus, for example) the antigens are different, so the immune system cannot be expected to be pre-trained to produce antibodies against the antigen. Many of the like-cures-like substances in homeopathy also do not survive direct symptomatic comparisons available with even such things as thermometers, blood pressure measurements, inflammation detection (by endoscope or MRI for example), and so on.

Dilution is the sillier part of homeopathy, this goes to the GP's question to you: homeopathy relies on the principle that a remedy's therepeutic value increases with the level of dilution. A substance is added to a solute and shaken. A small amount of the resulting solution is added to fresh solute (in a 1:10 (D) or 1:100 (C) ratio depending on whether the homeopathic D or C process is used) and shaken. Repeat several times (thirty is recommended). The result is a dilution of 1:1e30 (D) or 1:1e60 (C). Avogadro's number is 6e23 particles/mole, so even the (D) process results in the odds of a particle of solute remaining is very very low.

So the question was: where is your noise floor? Odds on the order of one in ten to the thirty-seventh power are, to all practical purposes, materially indistinguishable from odds of zero. (There is no physical process which can probe those odds -- the noise floors of most chemical tests which can be done in human time are orders of magnitude higher than these odds.) At some point researchers will decide that there is evidence of absence based on overwhelming probability. It is not dishonest to say exactly that, or even "we have proof of X's non-existence", instead of quoting ludicrous or even astronomical odds against the discovery of positive evidence through a given experiment.

Sweet!

[AxemRed]

We're one step closer to real sheeple.

Re:Sweet!

[dattaway]

Next we are going to have to send the sheep to public schools. And humans are going to complain that they are taking over our jobs.

Re:Sweet!

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't wait to fuck some nice, tight sheepussy

Re:Sweet!

[Anonymous Coward]

> Next we are going to have to send the sheep to public schools. And humans are going to complain that they are taking over our jobs.

"Bah."

Re:Sweet!

[HomelessInLaJolla]

I'm not certain, but I think this sort of thing was the intent behind the spirit of the law attempting to regulate stem cell research. Given the possiblity that such a chimera could go haywire, or drastically upset the food chain, or that experiments of this kind might eventually be used on unsuspecting or unwilling human participants it's just not a good idea to go meddling around with technology in this particular way.

At the same time the letter of the law application of stem-cell research regulations, where researchers who need a particular cell line to verify the effects of experimental pharmaceutical therapies for any number of diseases, is the way we see it applied.

The world is so sad, so confused, so topsy-turvy. When will it even come close to balancing itself?

Re:Sweet!

[tijmentiming]

imagine a beowulf cluster of these!
Or imagine one of these sheep next to a beowulf cluster!

Re:Sweet!

[generationcrm]

This is really going to confuse all the hillbillies....Has anyone sent a memo out?

Re:Sweet!

[cheater512]

I dont see any real ethical problems with this as long as they dont breed with normal sheep.

Keep them separate and you end up with on-demand organs which will save many lives.

Re:Sweet!

[HomelessInLaJolla]

Only if those on-demand organs are truly on-demand organs. Within a whole animal it would extremely difficult to create organs which don't retain some of the antigens of the host. We do have mice which are completely "naked" but the facilities required to keep them alive are so strenuous that I doubt we could create a farm so completely quarantined that it could support any number of these for organs on demand.

The distinction between the spirit and the letter of the law is what concerns me: using stem cells to grow tissue on demand is a more viable approach and yet that is the avenue of research which is being dogged more ferociously by the proposals to limit stem cell research. Here we have a blatant example of Frankensteinism (the spirit of the resistance to stem-cell research) and nobody bats an eye.

Re:Sweet!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's really the secret step. Forget bone marrow!

Re:Sweet!

[PitaBred]

Naah. Let's do them justice, homeschool them on Creationism ;) They are sheeple, after all... we wouldn't want them to start thinking on their own.

Re:Sweet!

[Anonymous Coward]

Dey took arrr jeeerrrrrrbbs

Re:Sweet!

[Beardo the Bearded]

Upset the food chain?

They feed chickens to cows, cows to chickens, fish to both, and GM corn with antibiotics to the chickens in the first place. The food chain looks like a fractal, not a line with humans at the top.

This won't fuck up the food chain any more than we already have.

And if I was dying (at a faster rate than the default) then I'd try out any new thing that could give me hope or maybe help out some other folks after me. So what if I have a sheep's liver, a robotic heart, and an embedded neural stabilizer?

Re:Sweet!

[Anonymous Coward]

Haven't some herders been doing this for centuries??

"Are you my da-a-a-a-ady?"

Re:Sweet!

[buraianto]

One has already been to school with Mary, though it was against the rules. It made the children laugh and play.

Re:Sweet!

[frdmfghtr]

Next we are going to have to send the sheep to public schools. And humans are going to complain that they are taking over our jobs.

Or grant them civil rights

Re:Sweet!

[Anonymous Coward]

And if I was dying (at a faster rate than the default) then I'd try out any new thing that could give me hope or maybe help out some other folks after me. So what if I have a sheep's liver, a robotic heart, and an embedded neural stabilizer?

Just don't end up with the brains of a chicken!

Re:Sweet!

[onco_p53]

Oh no, and I though it was just a movie...

Re:Sweet!

[bendodge]

Is it worse than ad hominem?

Re:Sweet!

[zippthorne]

Wait what? Is there some resistance to regular stem cell research I'm not aware of? I thought it was just the embryonic stem cells, and only because of that pesky, "we think it's a human with rights, so we shouldn't kill 'it'" crowd. Along with the "We have limited resources, and there's this similar research that's getting results other than rats with systemic tumors and organ rejection, let's give that a bigger slice"

Re:Sweet!

[HomelessInLaJolla]

because of that pesky, "we think it's a human with rights, so we shouldn't kill 'it'" crowd That crowd does exist, and I agree with your sentiment, but they're just an excuse.

I thought it was just the embryonic stem cells There's a significant push to restrict federal grants from any and all stem cells--using the complaints from the pesky whackos who don't know what they're talking about as justification. The real motivation is to protect the IP investments of companies who have been working with whole animal s as their profit from whole organs is much closer in the immediate future. Never mind that the product won't be what they say it is...

Re:Sweet!

[Prune]

How conveniently you ignore the real problem (that's even mentioned in the summary): viruses. This is not just some theoretical problem, but one that is well known in xenotransplantation. Do some research first, before clicking the Submit button! Even if these viruses do not normally infect humans, their presence in large amounts due to the transplant makes it quite likely that combination with some endogenous retroviral DNA in your genome will result in a virus that attacks humans. Thus by accepting animal-sourced organs yourself, you are putting all of humanity in danger.

Re:Sweet!

[textstring]

The sheeple will never rise up! We will be saved by the shepherds. Oh shit, maybe it is true after all.

Re:Sweet!

[textstring]

The GP brings up a good point that you completely ignored. This "technology", so to speak, is backed by a group of researchers who see some excitement and opportunity (I am not expert on stem cell research, but I have trust in scientists to a degree) in the field. If this can teach us something or otherwise flourish to improve, extend, or usefully augment human life I am all for it. We learn more every day and this is just the beginning. It is good that we understand the risks but we should not preemptively ban any chance for research to improve, may it be to dead-end, become a stepping stone, or completely diverge. God damn it I want robot parts, body parts that can keep me running or alive where my normal pack a day lungs, a liver and nervous system that can take a beating or a dampening. These improvements are necessary and imperative to improvement. Humans will do alright in the long run, let's see how smart we can get.

Re:Sweet!

[cliffski]

Research is welcome, and great, but big business does not work to the long timescales required to ensure that the research is thorough and poses no risks to humans. You only have to see the feverish way in which GM Food companies try to ram their product into europe, against firm customer resistance, to realise that what seems to really matter is the bottom line, not health, safety or curing diseases.
I'd love to be able to read about this kind of research, happy that its being carreid out with the right motives and will have no ill effects, but these days, there is always someone wanting to rush things ahead to boost this years stock price.

Re:Sweet!

[Anonymous Coward]

So what if I have a sheep's liver, a robotic heart, and an embedded neural stabilizer? I hear ya, bud! With my gyroscopic testes and viagra diffusion-on-demand implants, I'll grab whatever spare parts I can to keep the fun wheel spinning.

Re:Sweet!

[ThomK]

They feed chickens to cows, cows to chickens, fish to both, and GM corn with antibiotics to the chickens in the first place. The food chain looks like a fractal, not a line with humans at the top.

I totally agree, which is why I'm a Vegan. I switched about a year and a half ago and have since lost 70 pounds (I started out at 240) and my cholesterol and heart rate are down the line perfect. I'm not a PETA supporter, I still wear leather, I can not stand most animals and for the most part am just an average Joe. I'm not a Vegan for the sake of the animals, I'm a Vegan for my own well being.

The book at this link: http://www.drfuhrman.com/weightloss/about.aspx/ convinced me to become Vegan. If you are having any health problems (like sleep apnea or type 2 diabetes) you should run, not walk, to amazon.com to buy that book (I think you can get it used for under $5), it will change your life.

There is a lot of confusing information about diet out there, this book cuts through all that and basically tells you what's up. I want to walk up to overweight people and shake them and say "There's a better way! Read this!"

To end my commercial (for which I get paid nothing) I'd say: It has a very "Hack your body" feel to it, which is perfect for the Slashdot crowd. He goes into the details of the numbers of calories, nutrients, protein, fat, sugar, etc. It's an amazingly fast read, especially for a technical person.

Re:Sweet!

[AGMW]

Just don't end up with the brains of a chicken!

Presumably, if it was a brain you'd be looking for, they'd need two sheeple, 'cos two brains ... oh forget it!

... and why is it sheeple and not peep?

That sounds like a 70's detective series ... Sheeple and Peep

Euan Sheeple and Daffyd Peep are detectives with DEFRA, never more than a velcro glove away from ovine controversy.

Re:Sweet!

[Beardo the Bearded]

I'm a vegetarian. I didn't put that in the original post because I figured it would cost me some karma. Like you, it's for health reasons, not ethical ones. I'm wearing leather shoes right now.

I've been meat-free since 2000. I'm ovo-lacto, and that's on rare occasions. (Once/twice a week.) No gelatin, glycerin, or other animal by-products. (I do keep my vaccines up-to-date.)

10 years ago, I weighed 250 pounds. I weigh 175 now. Most of that is from biking to work, but cutting out the Donair & Poutine lunches helped a lot too.

Re:Sweet!

[Beardo the Bearded]

Just don't end up with the brains of a chicken!

So sayeth the Anonymous Coward...

*bock bock bock* ;)

Re:Sweet!

[ScrewMaster]

He has an ebook available on his site too, although he says it's Windows only, so it is probably in Microsoft's format. $14.95.

Re:Sweet!

[ScrewMaster]

Just on the off chance that you're not crazy, I ordered myself a copy.

Re:Sweet!

[ThomK]

That's awesome news, congratulations. I read that entire book in about 3 days, it's a very fast read.

I wish you the best of luck.

Hey!!!

[exiguus]

Sheepboys! Stop that jibber-jabberin'!!!

Brains...

[Anonymous Coward]

I know some people, I swear had the brains of sheep...

What would be the name of this new subspecies?

[MadJo]

Sheeple?
Sheman?
Humeep?
Pheeps?

!5%....

[fudgefactor7]

So, at what percentage does the sheep begin to obtain certain "unalienable rights"? Or; "When is a toaster not a toaster?"
 
And yes, I'm aware that "unalienable" is wrong, but it was good enough for the Founding Fathers, so it's good enough for me. Grammar Nazis can keep their mouth shut.

Re:!5%....

[Anonymous Coward]

All of them . . . claim unalienable dignity as individuals"

Garrison Keillor

If Garrison Keillor said it, it's a word.

Re:!5%....

[Anonymous Coward]

Arguably the human brain is what matters. A human head supported by an artificial body would have full human rights despite the low total percentage, and a human body with the head replaced by some AI would have no human rights (only the rights of a dead body), despite the high total percentage.

Re:!5%....

[Anonymous Coward]

Mouths.

Re:!5%....

[The Queen]

Yes, when will they say if you have even one drop of sheep blood, you are a sheep and therefore subject to the new Jim Crow laws...?

And please, would someone get these scientists (and the politicians/corporations who are supporting them) to watch Clonus?

Re:!5%....

[TheMeuge]

Every time I read articles like this, and get to hear the inevitable mudslinging that ensues, I don't know who I want to beat over the head with a biology textbook - the writers of the article, or the readers.

These sheep are not 15% human, there is no such thing - they're 15% antigenically identical. There is no percentage at which they will become human, because their basic structure is still of a sheep!

Re:!5%....

[RingDev]

Don't worry, we'll just classify them all as terrorist and it won't be an issue.

-Rick

Re:!5%....

[ArsonSmith]

But what if we teach them ninja skills? They could hang out with the turtles.

Re:!5%....

[pionzypher]

These sheep are not 15% human, there is no such thing - they're 15% antigenically identical. There is no percentage at which they will become human, because their basic structure is still of a sheep!

So what you're saying is that if I cut one of these babies up and have a bbq.... I'm good?

Re:!5%....

[cpeterso]

Just as long as you don't eat any of the 15% part. Ask your butcher to remove it.

Re:!5%....

[Intron]

"I used to think the brain was the most important organ in the body but then i thought, look who's telling me this!"

Re:!5%....

[Anonymous Coward]

Sixty percent! Haven't you ever *read* the constitution?

Re:!5%....

[manifoldronin]

"When is a toaster not a toaster?"

Why, isn't that easy - when it won't toast any more?

Re:!5%....

[binary paladin]

Unalienable is indeed a word. John Adams and Benjamin Franklin in particular (as Jefferson used inalienable in some of the early drafts) were looking for a word that was stronger than inalienable. They wanted a word that was that implied more than the idea that a right could not be taken away. The idea behind UNalienable was a right that could not be taken or GIVEN away. It conferred an implied duty intermingled with a glorified privilege. Check out a copy of Black's Law Dictionary.

At some point all words are "made up." Someone had to be the first to use them. Point is, any grammar Nazi to get on you for that one is not only NOT a grammar Nazi but also severely lacking as a history Nazi.

I'm more worried ...

[khasim]

about its effects on the international haggis market.

Re:I'm more worried ...

[beckerist]

Wait, I thought Scottish Farmers had been making these for AGES!

Re:I'm more worried ...

[Revek]

No like Texans they just practice.

Re:I'm more worried ...

[fbhua]

Have you considered its effect on the furry community? Deeply disturbing...

Re:I'm more worried ...

[lumber_13]

how about manpbearpig (remaining 33.333333-15 = 18.3333333 ) % should not be hard :)

here http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=228235 &op=Reply&threshold=0&commentsort=0&mode=nested&pi d=18496477

Re:I'm more worried ...

[lumber_13]

how about manpbearpig (remaining 33.333333-15 = 18.3333333 ) % should not be hard :)

here link fixed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manbearpig

Re:I'm more worried ...

[drunkahol]

Ever been to a football match where Aberdeen FC happen to be playing?

Aberdeen fans chant the following VERY early on:

We're only sheep sh@gging b@5t@rds
We're only " " "

etc
etc

Takes the wind out of the opposition chants somewhat if you can get their insults in first, but laugh at them instead.

My personal favourite is the one about Ian Durrant!

Re:I'm more worried ...

[nofx_3]

I can see it now...
 
{scottish accent}Got a little sheep in ya? Want about 15% more?{/scottish accent}
 
-kap

Re:I'm more worried ...

[nizo]

Solent haggis is people!

Re:I'm more worried ...

[not-enough-info]

Q: What's the difference between a Scotsman and a Rolling Stone?
A: The Rolling Stone says "Hey you, get off my cloud!" The Scotsman says "Hey McCloud, get off my ewe!"

oh man, if only this were funny.

Re:I'm more worried ...

[dacaldar]

SOYLENT WHITE IS (15%) PEO-PLE! IT'S (15%) PEEEEEEEOPLLLLLLLLE!

Don't give them brains...

[Ice Wewe]

Please, just don't... don't give them brains. That would be BAAAAAD!

Re:Don't give them brains...

[dgatwood]

Simplifying double negation.... Done.

So we should give them brains, then?

Re:Don't give them brains...

[drinkypoo]

Please, just don't... don't give them brains. That would be BAAAAAD!

Can you imagine a sheep looking up at you through the fence and saying "Are you my daaaaaddy?"

It's enough to drive you maaaaad.

Re:Don't give them brains...

[Penguinisto]

Man, for a second I wasn't sure if you were talking about BSE or some sort of mutant zombie sheep roaming the countryside, feeding on the living...

(I gotta stop feeding this damned horror flick habit, I really do...) /P

Re:Don't give them brains...

[boyko.at.netqos]

If sheep have human brains, does that mean they can finally consent?

I'm getting really ticked off at the whole "Baa means no!" crowd.

Re:Don't give them brains...

[Anonymous Coward]

That is sooooo funny

Re:Don't give them brains...

[dparnass]

That is a good question. The bigger question is at what pecentage will interbreeding occur. Thank the Goddess I grew up on a cattle farm. With those boys on sheep farms at what point can they take Dolly to the prom?

Re:Now all we need...

[Valar]

Are you Scottish?

Science and Sensationalism...

[posterlogo]

When I saw this, I thought the amazing thing was how the human organs managed to maintain much of their functionality in sheep. The idea of harvesting them for later use back in humans seems cool, but sensationalist at this point. IMHO, the most remarkable thing here is that one could get a very realistic model of human diseases in animals, upon which to dissect out the mechanisms of diseases and look for/test treatments.

If the far pro-lifers can be taken at their word..

[C10H14N2]

One cell would suffice.

Boy is this one going to piss them of no end... /My captcha was "Pounded"

How to flirt with the sheeple

[L. VeGas]

Hey, Lamby, you got any human in you?

Just 15%? What do you say we make it 20?

Re:How to flirt with the sheeple

[Cervantes]

Hey, Lamby, you got any human in you?

Just 15%? What do you say we make it 15.2% ?

Fixed that for you...

Re:How to flirt with the sheeple

[bad_fx]

You wouldn't happen to be Welsh would you....? :p

Re:How to flirt with the sheeple

[Anonymous Coward]

All Australian sheep already have 5% human in them.

Re:How to flirt with the sheeple

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up as insightful.

Re:How to flirt with the sheeple

[Anonymous Coward]

But you don't understand Officer, she's my cousin!

Re:How to flirt with the sheeple

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, Lamby, you got any human in you?

Just 15%? What do you say we make it 20?

So... you a Kiwi or a Scot?

Re:How to flirt with the sheeple

[__aailob1448]

Hahahaha. Awesomeness! Thank you very much for the laugh.

Re:How to flirt with the sheeple

[BlueTrin]

You just reduced my % of animal sex by 0.2%

Re:How to flirt with the sheeple

[Bazer]

That's a really small sheep or a very large amount of human... meat?

Re:How to flirt with the sheeple

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you smell fantastic! Is that mint?

Wannt come back to my place for a barbecue?

Sheep-Human disease transfer?

[RyanFenton]

I hope they isolate these sheep from other sheep populations. If the diseases can adapt to attack the human organs in the sheep environment, then we've potentially got a very large set of new diseases waiting to trickle in to the human population as they adapt to the new organs.

I believe there's already been at least one fictional book on this topic already. Ah, here it is.

Ryan Fenton

Re:Sheep-Human disease transfer?

[Anonymous Coward]

Worse, consider the risks of venereal disease, particularly in Scotland.

Re:Sheep-Human disease transfer?

[LarsG]

Spoiler! Spoiler!

The intro to Sigler's Ancestor is a remote research lab where a chimera goes wrong and a disease jumps species. Luckily, it is in an isolated remote region and the US drops a bomb on the compound. The US moves to crack down on other companies working on related biotech, and one of them goes underground. The company in question isn't working on a chimera, but is trying to recreate our common ancestor. The bulk of the book is about their work and what happens when they succeed. So the book isn't primarily about chimeras and disease.

Anyway, Sigler is cool and has made his book freely available both as a podiobook and as a pdf.
http://www.podiobooks.com/podiobooks/book.php?ID=8 5
http://scottsigler.podshow.com/2007/03/19/ancestor -pdf/

Birdflu was nothing compared to this

[Anonymous Coward]

One scientists worries, however, that the work could lead to new viruses that cross from animals to humans.

Now where are my wellies

The real test?

[CannonballHead]

It seems that the real test will be if a human body actually accepts it or not. "Science" can claim it's 100% human all they want... science seems to often be trial and error... or trial and refinement, if you would rather. So. Who is going to volunteer to have their body be a test environment for a sheep-build "human" liver? I guess if I was dying and needed a liver transplant, and can't get one. Still. 15% human is progress, I suppose, but I don't think my body would react in a very nice way if you put a 75% sheep liver in it. It'd be... well, baaaad. (sorry. couldn't resist.)

We tried that in NZ

[Kryptonut]

based on a true story....

Chimeras...

[CokoBWare]

Now those sheep farmers caught with their pants down lovin' the sheep in the fields won't get charged with bestiality... maybe just jailed for rape instead!

This is just a fruitcake-land idea... chimeras are BAD BAD BAD

Re:Chimeras...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are they bad?

Re:Chimeras...

[Anonymous Coward]

They're not bad. They're BAA-AAA-AA-AAAD!

At what percentage..

[myth24601]

When they get to 51% human can you marry them?

Re:At what percentage..

[Anonymous Coward]

You've obviously never met my ex-wife.

Re:At what percentage..

[kaizenfury7]

Probably as long as it's a male person to a female sheep, or a ram to a female person. Homosexual ovian-sapien relationship would still be a no-no.

Re:At what percentage..

[Anonymous Coward]

Does that 15% get into heaven?

Re:At what percentage..

[bobdotorg]

You've obviously never met my ex-wife.

Yes, but as we discussed, those were pig and dog genes.

Re:At what percentage..

[couchslug]

I'd prefer the 49% solution:

The ideal date turns into a six-pack and a pizza when you are done.
A seat cover and lamb chops ain't half-bad!

Re:At what percentage..

[Anonymous Coward]

The ideal date turns into a six-pack and a pizza when you are done.
A seat cover and lamb chops ain't half-bad!

Indeed! Now where are my velcro gloves...

Re:At what percentage..

[Anonymous Coward]

That brings a whole new meaning to mail-order bride...

I for one...

[mux2000]

You know the rest.

Oh, sure.

[Hawthorne01]

This SEEMS like a good idea.

But we know where this is heading.

Geez...

[__aaclcg7560]

These scientists really need to get out more and interact with real live women instead of creating substitutes in the lab.

Sheep are more relevant

[The-Bus]

Well, yes, we're killing sheep but at leas the help is more relevant. A transplanted organ will work for years or decades - a worthy sacrfice. When I eat lambchops I'm hungry just a few hours later.

Re:Sheep are more relevant

[veganboyjosh]

when i eat lambchops...oh, wait.

It's already been done.

[agent dero]

Maybe not with sheep, but I'm pretty sure we have goat-human hybrid's already walking among us :)

no patents for this one...

[qw0ntum]

Skittles already has prior art.

side of apple sauce?

[joe_bruin]

I don't know, tastes more like chicken to me.

Sheep

[Sporkinum]

"Bleating and babbling I fell on his neck with a scream.
Wave upon wave of demented avengers
March cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream."

Re:Sheep

[Anonymous Coward]

"Wave upon wave of 85% demented avengers"

shoot, it's already been done

[swschrad]

(obvious political/polling joke goes here)

but seriously, folks, back when men were MEN and sheep ran scared... (obvious king/subjects/fleecing joke goes here)

I don't want 15% human content in my supper. (obvious online sex site joke goes here.)

-0-

can ANYbody take this seriously?

This is a good idea, BUT . . .

[cashman73]

I would be interested to know whether the right wing right-to-lifers would be pissed off that you're raising innocent animals for the sole purpose of slaughtering and harvesting them for their organs,...

Or would the left wing animal rights naked PETA supporters be pissed off that you're raising innocent animals for the sole purpose of slaughtering and harvesting them for their organs,...

On the bright side, we might have actually found an issue that both the left and right wingers actually agree on!

Re:This is a good idea, BUT . . .

[woolio]

I would be interested to know whether the right wing right-to-lifers would be pissed off that you're raising innocent animals for the sole purpose of slaughtering and harvesting them for their organs,...

Me too.. And do these people eat Veal? Raising animals for their organs is a very old practice...

Re:This is a good idea, BUT . . .

[vhogemann]

Uh...

How it is different from raising a cow to make hamburger?

Re:This is a good idea, BUT . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

cant wait to eat that sheep....

my shrink said i couldnt eat anymore women, but now i cant eat all the sheep i want!

Meh

[antifoidulus]

people in West Virginia have been making these for YEARS!

Re:Meh

[sconeu]

I was waiting for this one... though I thought it might be about Scotsmen....

Comedians apply within:

[wiz31337]

I know there is a lonely farmer joke in there somewhere...

Scientists Create Sheep That Are 15 Percent Human

[thewiz]

Is that measured by volume or by weight?

Sheeps with four nipples

[biocute]

Well, combine that with this four-nipple cousin, plastic surgeons will be able to serve two clients with one sheep.

Clone High

[polyomninym]

Does anyone remember that really fun show, Clone High??? One of the teachers was half sheep. Great show!

brings new meaning to

[Kierthos]

Mary had a little lamb.

Re:brings new meaning to

[Archangel Michael]

Just wait till Old McDonald has a farm!

Re:brings new meaning to

[Anonymous Coward]

Mary had a little lamb.

Well, according to this news, it's more likely Mary was a little lamb.

Re:brings new meaning to

[kaizenfury7]

No wonder everywhere that Mary went, the lamb was sure to go.

Re:brings new meaning to

[Frumious Wombat]

I can't find the cartoon online, but about last summer Utne Reader ran a small cartoon of a sheep with a human face, and the caption,

"And With Help From the Transpecies Movement, Mary Became a Little Lamb"

In all seriousness, Sheep get prion diseases, which advance rather quickly. Am I going to have to be ready to put down my coworkers due to Scrapie?

Re:brings new meaning to

[A_Non_Moose]

Mary had a little lamb.

Bow-chicka-bow-wow!

Actually, if "lamb" is not gender specific then would it be "lesbeeaaaan" or change to "A little lamb had Mary".

Still, Bow-chicka-bow-wow!

Re:brings new meaning to

[Ira Sponsible]

Mary had a little lamb.
The ram was so proud he smoked a cigar.
Meanwhile, the midwife fainted.

Classic.

Re:brings new meaning to

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought you folks would enjoy any excuse to shoot the PHB.

Sheep That Are 15 Percent Human

[infiniphonic]

Why Esmail, how mad scientist of you! Your roommate and a pork chop next you say? Excellent.

Hardly Impressive...

[rueger]

... given that so many people seem to already be 51% sheep.

The lord is my shepard.

[Anonymous Coward]

But chimeras are going to hell.

Hannibal Lecter thinks otherwise

[biocute]

The idea, of course, is to harvest those organs to transplant into human patients

What about cooking and eating those organs?

Re:Hannibal Lecter thinks otherwise

[kaizenfury7]

They haven't been successful yet in creating sheep that's 15% mint jelly.

And they said

[Anonymous Coward]

When asked for comment, the sheep replied,
"Please stop fucking us".

Re:Now all we need...

[Anonymous Coward]

Na, matey. I'm from New Zealand.

THE most important question related to this topic!

[IgLou]

Ok, if I ate a sheep that was 15% human would that make me 15% cannibal?

And don't go looking at me like it hasn't crossed any of your minds!

Re:Now all we need...

[winkydink]

Hey MacCloud, get off of my ewe!

TAG IT!!!

[Devil's BSD]

Everyone tag it "sheeple." No, really.

Well,

[rantingkitten]

I for one welcome our new sheep-hybrid overlords.

Sheman?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sheman?
Shemale?
HeShe?
Tranny?
Cw/Ds

Wait, what were we talking about?

Presidential Memo To Slashbot: +1, PatRIOTic

[Anonymous Coward]

95 percent of Gulag America is sheep.

I hope this helps.

Feloniously yours ( not under oath),
"President" George W. Bush.

hybridize this!!

[technoendo]

Pfff this is ofn, my family has been hybridizing with sheep for centuries.

woohoo!!!

[trailerparkcassanova]

My weekends are about to get a whole lot better.

sounds like a baaaaad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

pun intended

Re:sounds like a baaaaad idea

[theophilosophilus]

Glad to see someone has as lame a sense of humor as me. You stole my joke.

Re:sounds like a baaaaad idea

[Morky]

Stole mine too. I even had the same number of A's.

How about

[dimeglio]

Most humans all already 15% sheep. Some will say that if government has it's way, we'll soon see than percentage increase. Can the experiment really be to perfect the process then apply it to reverse humans and make them more like sheeps? Is Microsoft sponsoring the work?

great....

[mdm-adph]

...shepherds already find sheep attractive enough as it is.

Yeah, but WHICH organs?

[StikyPad]

Talk about some gamey mutton.

UUgh

[JustNiz]

Is there no limit to the abominations that some so-called scientists will sink to? This is awful.

Re:UUgh

[JustNiz]

Why did my post get modded as flamebait?
Is the fact that I'm genuinely appalled so contentious and I just shut up and be a good drone?

Re:UUgh

[Terraism]

It may have been due to the tone - the fact that it is, essentially, an ad hominem against the scientists. Being appalled isn't flamebait - claiming that the scientists are obviously not without any back up, on the other hand, is.

Blech! I got prior art!

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been working on this technology for QUITE A WHILE using a different approach..

I've been trying to impregnate the sheep at my farm...

Re:Human arrogance towards life and God

[RingDev]

We do it because we can.

Who's to say that God didn't do it "because he could"?

-Rick

Enough sheepish humans

[Anonymous Coward]

There are more than enough humans already, who act like sheep. We should focus on those first.

Re:Human arrogance towards life and God

[jafiwam]

Bevets, meet Slashdot. Slashdot, meet Bevets.

Let's meet the meat

[davidwr]

How long before we come up with the Ameglian Major Cow?

That long? How depressing.

Deeply touching

[FreemanPatrickHenry]

I can't wait for this. Be still my bleating heart!

Re:THE most important question related to this top

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if you ate the whole sheep; if you only ate 85% of it you might not be a cannibal at all!

Paraphase of The Simpson's quote

[Anonymous Coward]

Dolly wasn't meant to be, baaaa (dies)

We all know how it happened!

[kannibul]

http://www.worldwideretro.com/modules/coppermine/a lbums/userpics/11529/sheepguy.jpg

Sorry for the inevitable /. effect!

That's going to hurt

[DRAGONWEEZEL]

If someone pokes them in the stomach 20 times, they might explode?

Re:Human arrogance towards life and God

[dino2gnt]

Oh, I see what you did there...

Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see if they can create a person that's 15% human.

why sheep, rather than swine?

[dltaylor]

In many ways, swine are a closer functional match to humans than sheep (omnivorous, for example), so I wonder if using them for organ hosts wouldn't make more sense. No "mad pig" variant of scrapie, either, AFAIK.

'Course, if some of the other posters are correct, there are "ulterior motives" in using sheep ;-) or it could just be that Nevada livestock industry has sheep but not swine.

What? I can't believe this!

[Penguinisto]

No Welsh jokes yet? Wyoming Farmer Jokes?

*sigh*... I am so disappointed in you people.

/P

At the mental level...

[Browzer]

Nature had no problem creating 90% of the human population 99% sheep.

Less beastiality

[Anonymous Coward]

That's 15% less beastiality for the perverted sheep hurders out there.

Re:Human arrogance towards life and God

[QuantumG]

God can go fuck himself and so can you.

Seriously, if God's all powerful, let's see him come down here and stop us. None of this magical wind shit. None of this saint in a borrito shit. Get in your Jesus suit and come down here.

Yeah, that's what I thought.

Your religion is all talk.

Are crabs next?

[Anonymous Coward]

Taste like crab, talk like people

Re:Are crabs next?

[kannibul]

Yeah, next we'll have an annoying sponge that talks, and a starfish doing comic relief!

Agreed

[Anonymous Coward]

It's very baaaaaaaaaaad.

*duck*

Re:Agreed

[Anonymous Coward]

Bawwwwwb, is that you?

Re:Agreed

[wolf369T]

Do you mean: *sheep* ?

Let see how we see "communists"

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Runs up massive deficits due to inefficient gov.
2. Spies on everybody.
3. Takes personal property away and declares it state property.
4. Runs concentration camps.
5. Denies its citizens rights and imprisons them at a drop of a hat.
6. Invades other countries and then tries to control them.
7. Tries to control from a small group over all others using any means possible even illegal.
8. Is happy to control the election and limit the selection of who is there. Does not worry about fair elections.

Oh, yeah, that really describes the democrats, ok. No doubt about it.

Got some more of those drugs.

Re:Let see how we see "communists"

[OECD]

Oh, yeah, that really describes the democrats, ok. No doubt about it.

Which one of those have Dems not done? GP is right, be worried either way.

Re:Let see how we see "communists"

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck ewe!

Re:Let see how we see "communists"

[Anonymous Coward]

Truly the best laugh I have had on /. in a long time.

No probaalem.

[Maxo-Texas]

I don't see a probaalem with doing this. It sounds useful and baaenificial.

Re:No probaalem.

[MattS423]

that was a baad pun.

Re:No probaalem.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he meant ewesful

Oryx and Crake

[Anonymous Coward]

See: Margaret Atwood, Oryx and Crake.

Re:Oryx and Crake

[Asmandeus]

I would of gave you points if you had a name. Oryx and Crake is spot on. For those that haven't read it, part of the story deals with genetics and what has come of it. In particular there are pigs that have human organs for transplants.

Coincides with release of "Black Sheep" nicely.

[vik]

A mock-horror film about genetically modified sheep turning bad, just released:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sheep_(2007_fil m)

"There are 40 million sheep in New Zealand....and they're pissed off!"

Vik :v)

Re:Coincides with release of "Black Sheep" nicely.

[Anonymous Coward]

The politically correct term is African-American Sheep.

Re:Coincides with release of "Black Sheep" nicely.

[Anonymous Coward]

Shhh, you'll attract attention from the GNSAA.

Re:Human arrogance towards life and God

[ksalter]

Genesis 1:26 & 28 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

No, the important question would be

[WindBourne]

did you enjoy it?

Re:No, the important question would be

[Bearhouse]

Rather, did you catch something from it?

The question, as always...

[Kohath]

What was the old record?

Sheep shagger jokes...

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Why does an Australian/Kiwi wear gumboots? So the sheep can't run away when you shag it!

Does this mean sheep shagging is no longer bestiality? OTOH, if it is human, a sheep dies long before reaching the age of consent so you'd get in trouble for sex with a minor.

Re:Sheep shagger jokes...

[fucksl4shd0t]

When the sheep has a human vagina, then it's no longer bestiality.

Re:Sheep shagger jokes...

[The Great Pretender]

Does this mean that sheep may eventually able to cook?

Re:Sheep shagger jokes...

[MouseR]

It's currently only 85% bestiality.

And 15% screwed-up.

Re:Sheep shagger jokes...

[eyendall]

Nothing wrong with me, I only screw female sheep.

Re:THE most important question related to this top

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the tought that crossed my mind was "wouldn't that make it 15% murder"?

Brings new meaning to...

[Anonymous Coward]

Flock 'em all.

Meanwhile...

[gillbates]

Politicians are busy trying to create people that are more than 15% sheep...

At this stage, it is uncertain who has made better progress, but it's not looking good for the scientists...

I work with sheep

[theendlessnow]

Half of the people I work with are 85% "sheep"....

May have to change our hiring practices. Probably will have to change 'domestic partner' in the politically correct sections of our benefits booklet.

What this really means is...

[ShagratTheTitleless]

CowboyNeal's fetish just got 15% less creepy.

You bastard ...

[Anonymous Coward]

You made me click on a link to the Daily Mail. That's unforgiveable.

Re:Human arrogance towards life and God

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is your focus on the the perceived attitude of the scientists. Attitude does not matter at all. If I was pompous asshole doctor and found the cure for cancer or aids, what difference does it make to you? You talk about unforeseen consequences; that is a good reason to be cautious. Then you ruin it by all this God talk and we should know "our place" bullshit.

The Einstein icon for this article

[jalet]

This E(i)nstein icon for the article is a very good idea, but instead of Albert's icon you should have used his brother Franck's one.

Infectious disease research!

[smellsofbikes]

My first thought was "wait, I thought humans and sheep were already 95% the same!" or whatever (misleading) statistic people come up with.

But, more seriously, the species-crossing virus is a problem, but it also is a good thing. Right now we have lousy animal models for AIDS and leprosy. If we could get animal models for these, it could be a great help in finding a treatment for them. On a purely creepy level, you can give a 90% human sheep drug-resistant tuberculosis and treat it, while you can't do that to a 100% human -- but of course that raises the question of where a 90% human sheep stands as regards rights, compared to, say, a human with Down's Syndrome or some other disorder with profound effects on behavior and development.

Re:Human arrogance towards life and God

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering that e. coli was discovered in 1885 I have to admit I have no idea what you are talking about. However, you don't have to be a end-times religious nut (not that I know you to be a religious nut) to be at least a little bit concerned about this. You can be an atheist and still not want to succumb to some weird cross-over sheep disease.

What percent human does it need...

[Nathgar]

to be to look in the mirror say, "OH MY GOD! I'm a sheep, please don't eat me!"

Makes one wonder

[supersky]

So if they can't test on humans, then how about humans that look like sheep? Or sheep that are magically transformed into humans, sort of brings us back to ethics of the whole thing.

Progress

[CrimsonScythe]

Scientists Create Sheep That Are 15 Percent Human

Good to see that the scientists have finally entered this arena. I've heard that efforts have been underway for decades in Arkansas, though unsuccessful and on a more recreational level. It wasn't for a lack of trying, though.

*Crossing fingers that noone in Arkansas with mod-points are offended.*

Where in the bible does it say not to do this?

[spun]

I want a clear quote that mentions genetic engineering specifically, not just your interpretation of some obscure passage. I mean, seriously, where do you so-called Christians get off making shit up and then claiming, "God said so?" Just because you get creeped out by human-sheep hybrids doesn't mean that God does.

I'm agnostic. I think if there is a God, he doesn't give a rat's ass what we do. If he did, he would have made it a whole lot clearer. He wouldn't have just had humans write what he said in a book, because that is so easy to fake. not to mention, everyone seems to have their own book. Which one is right?

Assuming you are Christian, didn't God say to dominate nature for our own purposes, putting fear and terror into the hearts of all animals? Heck, that's pretty much license to do whatever we want to nature, don't you think? But no, of course not. You know God better than anyone else, right?

Re:Where in the bible does it say not to do this?

[JAMDoc]

As a geneticist, this is very exciting, but not as revolutionary as you might think. This is not really a genetically engineered sheep, it is a hybrid, a "chimera". Injected stem cells from a human (from bone marrow) are introduced into a developing sheep such that they take root and join in the sheep's development, replicating and differentiating to form organ tissue which is of human origin. It's more like cell culture than genetic engineering and no one has any problem with cell culture. The mention of the viral concern is very important and could essentially kill or at least delay this whole project if it is not dealt with. Every human and every animal is constantly infected with scads of different viruses (from birth on) that stay with us and do little or no damage to us our whole lives. Recent studies have found that we produce enormous amounts of viral proteins constantly, some of which almost certainly BENEFIT us, odd as it may sound. However, it is not easily predicted what a virus comfortable in sheep might do in a human host. Bottom line however, if the options are risk or death, go with risk. As a Christian, I've got no major problem with this and most Christians who really understand it will agree. We eat these animals and wear their skin and fur as clothing. If anything, this is a way to waste as little as possible. Anyone who has a problem with growing organs in animals better not be eating them or wearing leather... or taking medications, or wearing makeups, or using soap, or etc. etc. (All these things required extensive studies in animals before we ever saw them.) One sheep might feed a family for a week, but in this case, one sheep could save a person's life and save us all $$ that would be spent on anti-rejection drugs. btw:

didn't God say to dominate nature for our own purposes, putting fear and terror into the hearts of all animals?

No, He didn't. He assigned us the job of caretaker of earth and its animals/everythings, essentially.

Re:Where in the bible does it say not to do this?

[Bad D.N.A.]

Which one is right?

You know nothing of the ways of God.

God clearly wanted a geographical based religious system.

Re:Where in the bible does it say not to do this?

[Anonymous Coward]

"I am always wary of those who say they have heard God because his words always seem to coincide with their own desires".

--Paraphrase of a quote I saw on a billboard in front of an Anglican church in downtown Ottawa. If anyone knows who said it, please reply, it's a great quote.

Re:Where in the bible does it say not to do this?

[plenTpak]

where do you so-called Christians get off making shit up and then claiming, "God said so?"

This bothers me too, and is called taking God's name in vain, which is clearly commanded against in Exodus 20:7.

didn't God say to dominate nature for our own purposes, putting fear and terror into the hearts of all animals?

In Genesis 1:26-30 God is depicted giving man rule over animals.

Re:Where in the bible does it say not to do this?

[Anonymous Coward]

When God spoke, His words were quite revealing. That quote is spot on though: choosing what in this life to make the foundation of your faith (The Bible? or the Qur'an, or the Torah, or Tom Cruise, or ...), and deciding what to do with your life -- these will take all of your life to flesh out.

The quote may have originated here: http://www.funmansion.com/post/archive/index.php/t -829.html:

I have noticed that the people who know exactly what it is that God wants them to do, it always seems to coincide with their own desires

Grandparent post asks:

I want a clear quote that mentions genetic engineering specifically, not just your interpretation of some obscure passage.

This is my answer, but obviously it's not going to satisfy the grandparent, because they want "a clear quote that mentions genetic engineering specifically":

Genesis 1:24
And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Genesis 1:24 (Masoretic Text) click here

Posting anonymously because I'd rather keep my foes list from growing.

Re:Where in the bible does it say not to do this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously you haven't even begun to investigate the intricacies of the Bible both in history, content, and context. Before you generalize the Word of God perhaps you should know what it is that you stereotype. If you are a responsible intelligent individual then you will investigate and determine which is right. Do you believe that God will make Himself so evident that you could sit on you ass all day never searching for Him and still understand. We are given the gift of intelligence so that we can examine and inspect all those who claim to have the path of life. It requires more than reading what other people say about what people say on the web. Read first hand from those books which you so quickly push aside and determine your own mindset before you attack someone else's.

Re:Where in the bible does it say not to do this?

[plasmoidia]

I want a clear quote that mentions genetic engineering specifically, not just your interpretation of some obscure passage. I mean, seriously, where do you so-called Christians get off making shit up and then claiming, "God said so?" Just because you get creeped out by human-sheep hybrids doesn't mean that God does. Your demand is rather ridiculous. How is the Bible, or any religious or moral or otherwise book, supposed to cover every conceivable topic *specifically*? Especially a topic that will not have any relevance for another few thousand years. Does it not make more sense to give general guidelines which can be applied with wisdom to a number of specific situations? Everything must be interpreted at some point. To write this response you had to interpret what the GP said. Please note that I am not saying I necessarily agree with what GP said or how they said it.

I'm agnostic. I think if there is a God, he doesn't give a rat's ass what we do. If he did, he would have made it a whole lot clearer. He wouldn't have just had humans write what he said in a book, because that is so easy to fake. not to mention, everyone seems to have their own book. Which one is right? Why would God create something like the universe and humans and not care about it at all? Have you ever worked on and made something and not cared about it? In what way does God not make it clear that He is concerned about what we do? There is plenty of evidence out there to support the authenticity of the Bible and the claims in it. Much more than I could present here.

Assuming you are Christian, didn't God say to dominate nature for our own purposes, putting fear and terror into the hearts of all animals? Heck, that's pretty much license to do whatever we want to nature, don't you think? Wow, that is very wrong. Perhaps you should actually try reading the Bible before you try to quote it. And you can always look it up and actually quote it. A sibling already referenced where God gave man charge over the world, including the animals. Note that with authority always comes responsibility. God gaving man charge to rule over the animals does not in any way imply that we can do whatever we want. Genesis 9:1-4 talks about the "fear and terror" you talk about. Note that it does not say for us to put fear and terror into animals, just that they will fear us. Hence most wild animals usually try to avoid humans.

To directly address the topic at hand, I am not entirely sure what to think of it. It certainly is very strange sounding. There seem to be legitimate concerns that need to be addressed and studied before we dive headlong into this sort of thing. Some disease moving from sheep to humans or vice versa is bound to be a problem if it happened. I believe we need to be responsible with life and not careless.

Re:Where in the bible does it say not to do this?

[FrostedChaos]

However, it is not easily predicted what a virus comfortable in sheep might do in a human host. Bottom line however, if the options are risk or death, go with risk.
It would be an easy call if the risk was just to the person getting the transplant. Their body, their choice. However, communicable diseases like AIDS and bird flu got their start as zoonoses...

As a Christian, I've got no major problem with this and most Christians who really understand it will agree. We eat these animals and wear their skin and fur as clothing.
I don't think this is such a small matter as you claim. The boundaries between two species have been weakened.
Biologists have always pointed out the similarities between human DNA and that of animals... but now there is a concrete... creature embodying these similarities. Yes, I realize that the human cells have not interbred with the sheep cells, but this is still a partly human creature, a chimera.

I think the next big step is a sheep with a human brain. Someone will do it. Even if the research is banned in the US, you can count on Singapore or China to push the envelope. And that will raise a lot of questions that nobody likes to think about.

One sheep could save a person's life and save us all $$ that would be spent on anti-rejection drugs.
I agree. This could be revolutionary for organ transplants.

Re:Where in the bible does it say not to do this?

[nbritton]

It's in the first chapter of the book... Genesis, Creation, Adam, and Eve. It's not that complicated...

"If God wanted to forgive our sins, why not just forgive them? Who's God trying to impress? Presumably himself, since He is judge and jury as well as execution victim. Oh, but of course, the story of Adam and Eve was only ever symbolic, wasn't it? Symbolic? So Jesus had himself tortured and executed for a symbolic sin by a nonexistent individual. Nobody - not brought up in the faith - could reach any verdict but; "barking mad"." --Richard Dawkins

It's a well known fact that Christians lack critical thinking skills.

Q.E.D.

Re:Where in the bible does it say not to do this?

[caol.kailash]

not to mention, everyone seems to have their own book. Which one is right?

I never get this sort of a belief especially when it comes to religion. Who's to say that only one particular religion is right in every way 100% of the time? Why can't it be that each religion has elements of truth to it, as well as elements of human bullshit added in that it's up to you and your mind and feelings to judge as being true and pragmatic and go with that?

That's one thing that's nice about Hinduism, God (specifically Vishnu) can incarnate in any form as necessary, and does so in such a way to be most beneficial and understandable to those particular people. That's why when the Christians came along they're like, "Yeah sure, Jesus. That works. Hey, Krishna's pretty sweet too though!" and went on with their lives.

It's this whole Platonic Rationalism false dilemma bullshit that pisses me off and that causes the religious wars in the world. The assumption of "Either I'm right xor you're wrong." Is a load of crap (for religion) Who really gives a shit what you believe in? Just so long as you don't trample on others (who are unwilling at least) for it, do whatever the hell you want.

And note: I fully and freely apply this to the Science vs. Religion thing. Who said it's one or the other? It's possible to mix the two. And I don't want to hear about "relativism's bad" cause I clearly said only for religion, once you talk about most other ethics (e.g. murder) and stuff it's different.

Re:Where in the bible does it say not to do this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, in the Tora, there's a pretty strict restriction on 'mixing species' ("Sh'atnez").

Re:Where in the bible does it say not to do this?

[spun]

Oh man, do people foe you for being Christian here? That sucks. I give religious types a hard time sometimes, but I'm against dogma, not God. I just think one's relationship with the divine is an intensely personal matter and categorically is not the province of organized religion, which seeks to mediate your own relationship with God through their power structure.

So that Genesis quote, the key is the "after his kind" part? Do you know what was originally meant? I'm sure Bible scholars have put that quote into its proper cultural framework.

Re:Where in the bible does it say not to do this?

[spun]

Screw you, you don't know me, and you have absolutely no idea how long and hard I've looked for God. So nice of you to trivialize a lifelong spiritual quest. Sorry, but your God has disappointed me, not the other way around.

Re:Where in the bible does it say not to do this?

[spun]

The Bible is clear on things that matter. It is not right to assume that you know what matters to God if it is not clear in the Bible. If God had not wanted us to genetically engineer animals, He would have put in a passage like the one about not using mixed fabrics that everybody follows so diligently.

God doesn't need to care about the Universe. It is omnipotent and omniscient. I'm not sure you've thought through the implications of that. As for the evidence you mention: yes, anecdotes and hearsay are kinds of evidence. I've looked, long and hard. I've searched for God my whole life. Sorry, finding God isn't as easy or as simple as you make it out to be, even when the desire is strong and the search lasts a lifetime.

You knew exactly the Genesis I meant. It's pretty clear to me, maybe you interpret it differently, but to me it sounds an awful lot like God is giving us complete dominion over Nature, and saying that Nature will be rightfully terrified of that dominion. What's your interpretation?

Re:Where in the bible does it say not to do this?

[khallow]

Do you believe that God will make Himself so evident that you could sit on you ass all day never searching for Him and still understand.

I think it's pretty clear that God, if he exists, has not made himself evident. And the efforts of men through the practice of religion, science, and other means to characterize God are in vain.

Re:Where in the bible does it say not to do this?

[shunnicutt]

God clearly wanted a geographical based religious system.

So religion is deliberately region-encoded?

Re:Where in the bible does it say not to do this?

[CannonballHead]

The Bible is clear on things that matter. It is not right to assume that you know what matters to God if it is not clear in the Bible. You're right. If God had not wanted us to genetically engineer animals, He would have put in a passage like the one about not using mixed fabrics that everybody follows so diligently. I would tend to agree. Although I do have to say that God would have to phrase it in some way that the people 2000 to 4000 years ago would at least partially understand. Maybe something about grafting animals, hehe. God doesn't need to care about the Universe. It is omnipotent and omniscient. Um.. the universe is not omnipotent nor omniscient. The universe is nothing. According to the Bible, the universe is only in existence because of God (specifically Christ) and the universe is actually only being held together by His power... which is why there are things in the universe that are so delicately balanced that, were one thing off... well, a Dr. Strangelove; or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Just Love the Bomb grade type of disaster might incur. (hooray for Peter Sellers) I've looked, long and hard. I've searched for God my whole life. The only thing I can think of to say is: what kind of God were you looking for? but to me it sounds an awful lot like God is giving us complete dominion over Nature, and saying that Nature will be rightfully terrified of that dominion. Well, look at the actual account. God told Adam to subdue the earth. So, what did Adam do? All the animals came to him and he named them. Now, tell me if I'm wrong, but an animal that is terrified of someone isn't likely going to just randomly walk up to you and wait for you to name it. It is only after the fall that fear, terror, misuse of dominion, etc., came about. Right now, I would say that yes, the "natural world" is "afraid" of us. Squirrels run away. But when some effects of the curse are done away with, in the Millennium, this fear will not be there anymore.

Isaiah 11:6: And the wolf will dwell with the lamb, And the leopard will lie down with the young goat, And the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; And a little boy will lead them. (NASB ©1995)

God never gave man the right to misuse dominion. That came with the fall. This then, I think, is where some Christians take the stance against genetically modifying foods, animals, etc. Humans have a tendency to play with things they don't really understand, and bad things happen because of it. We don't really know where this 15% sheep thing is going, pretty much everyone on slashdot has seemed to imply that much, it seems. Is it necessarily evil to play around with genetics in animals? I, as a Christian, don't really think so. Glow in the dark jelly fish are kinda cool. But would I suggest eating a genetically modified carrot that glows in the dark? Hm, no. Is it "scientifically proven" to harm me? No, but I'd still be awfully leery about it.

Re:Where in the bible does it say not to do this?

[CannonballHead]

I'm an idiot and didn't format it well.

Re:Where in the bible does it say not to do this?

[spun]

No, I meant GOD is omniscient and omnipotent. The "It" was capitalized, an inconsistent nod to non-gender based Divinity. Omniscience and omnipotence rule out desire. One can not know everything and have all power and still have anything left to desire, it makes no sense, that was the point I wss trying to make.

I was looking for a Divinity I could believe in. I was not looking for certainty, but there are certain illogical things I can not accept. If God wants certain things from me, why put those instructions in different and contradictory religions, all of which look more like the work of imperfect man than a perfect God? If God is omniscient and omnipotent, the things written by God's hand would be perfect in a way that was qualitatively different than things written by the hand of man. I have seen no such things. All I have seen are people who do not know God any better than I do trying to tell me that they know what God wants.

I have found something that I can only describe as very large and very mysterious. In Christian terms It most closely resembles the concept of the Divine held by Deists. It is certainly nothing like the God that most Christians think of, in fact, It is so different from and larger than that that calling it God only confuses the issue as far as I'm concerned. But in my quest for this, I did honestly and sincerely (at one point) accept Jesus as my personal savior, and some time after that this very large and mysterious thing began to make itself known to me, so who knows? It could also just be my own mind's ability to find patterns even when there are none. Until something along the lines of a burning bush speaks directly to me, I'm afraid I'm going to have to remain agnostic.

Good point about the fall and our dominion over nature, it puts my Genesis quote in the proper context. I still think you are reading your own interpretation into it, and that's fine. As I said, one's relationship with the divine is a personal matter. It just isn't fair to say that your interpretation is THE interpretation, as many religions do.

Re:Where in the bible does it say not to do this?

[penguinoid]

I want a clear quote that mentions genetic engineering specifically, not just your interpretation of some obscure passage.

Obviously, that would have been hard as there was no genetic engineering back then. And if you try to cover every special case, you will get something that looks like the current law system (try putting that on stone tablets). Someone mentioned that God created the animals to reproduce "after their kind" but it doesn't say we are not to interfere. Presumably sheep are not created in God's image, but what about these? (And how much in God's image are we anyhow? Carefully read about the effects of eating the forbidden fruit, very interesting.)

A different aspect, which will need to be dealt with regardless of christianity, is what status these chimeras have. Are they a human that is 85% sheep? Do they have any rights? (their purpose in life is to die so that you may have life, pun intended). What about when someone inevitably makes something with more than 50% human cells? If something is genetically human but developed as a sheep would, are they human? Are we allowed to eat them? (very bad idea). What if one of the egg cells is a human egg (or sperm)?

I mean, seriously, where do you so-called Christians get off making shit up and then claiming, "God said so?"

That's a tradition taken from ancient Israel :-) Jesus was not pleased.
"You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men." Mark 7:8

Assuming you are Christian, didn't God say to dominate nature for our own purposes, putting fear and terror into the hearts of all animals? Heck, that's pretty much license to do whatever we want to nature, don't you think?

God said he would put the fear of man in the wild animals. But I hate the morons who say that just because we are supposed to dominate/subdue/rule over nature, that means that we should destroy it. How are you going to rule over it when it is destroyed?

--
In summary, chimeras are a very very dangerous idea from a moral standpoint, and are also likely to result in disease that once affected sheep now affecting both sheep and people.

Re:Where in the bible does it say not to do this?

[chernevik]

If someone proposed to work routinely on a large enterprise network as root without backup, you'd call them an idiot. If they gave that access to someone who clearly didn't know what they were doing, you'd look for stronger language. If NASA did it on mission critical systems with people in orbit, you'd call them criminal. So why does it make sense to let people mess around with the genome? We barely understand human psychology and its physiological roots -- we're getting started, but we don't yet know even what we don't know. We certainly don't understand how that psychology interacts to form groups and societies. The American founding fathers probably had the best, most practicable understanding of human nature and politics in human history, and their findings are largely ignored. Even if we understood all this, why are you so sure that we won't see a biotech Bill Gates, creating God knows what because it's commercially interesting? The idea of an infinite, loving God creating people inspires a certain reverent awe at His creation. If you don't go for that, reflect on the complexity and diversity of a genome that has evolved over billions of years and succeeded in a nearly infinite array of challenges. And we're going to mess with that because we might get some marginal improvements? I'd say the risk/reward analysis on this is fairly clear, and will be until we know an awful lot more, and are far better people, than we do and are currently. I'm not that worried about sheep genomes, but I am worried about an attitude that provides zero barriers to some nightmare scenarios.

Re:Where in the bible does it say not to do this?

[JAMDoc]

It would be an easy call if the risk was just to the person getting the transplant. Their body, their choice. However, communicable diseases like AIDS and bird flu got their start as zoonoses...

That's a good point. However, every time you eat a rare steak, you are almost certainly encountering multiple cow viruses in your mouth. (they'd likely be killed in your stomach FAST, but in your mouth, they're comfy.) But of course you never get one of them because they can't infect you and can't replicate in your cells. It's true that this study might provide the viruses more "motivation" to adaptively mutate, but the chances that they would successfully adapt to our cells is very unlikely. Using bird flu as an example, people can get infected (obviously) but only those who are in contact with HUGE amounts of virus and even in those cases, the virus is not contagious to other humans. Recent papers have proposed that the virus would need some 8 or so specific mutations to become a serious human pathogen. Since mutation is random, that makes the odds of that happening right up there with surviving air-born plane explosion. hehe. Sure, there's a risk, but it's slim to say the least.

I don't think this is such a small matter as you claim. The boundaries between two species have been weakened. Biologists have always pointed out the similarities between human DNA and that of animals... but now there is a concrete... creature embodying these similarities. Yes, I realize that the human cells have not interbred with the sheep cells, but this is still a partly human creature, a chimera.

The ultimate goal of these studies will take us further away from a "sheep-man" and closer to a sheepish organ incubator. Stem cells become their ultimate tissues/organs through many steps, some of which we can recognize and manipulate even today. Heck, right down the hall from me, they're making neurons and next to them, they're making bone cells hoping to find treatments for things like osteogenesis imperfecta ...see Mr. Glass in "Unbreakable" :D ... and of course the people who made these sheep would rather program the cells to JUST become a heart or JUST a liver for example. They don't want "sheep-human" freaks. That'd be a little hard to sell to their funding agency. hehe. So bottom line, a human liver does not a sheep-man make IMO.

People often assume that every scientific advance is a slippery slope, which is good to think so as to keep things reigned in. But in actuallity, Nobody's gonna go all Dr. Moreau on us. Some people cross the line and they lose funding or wind up getting new laws made and fast.
This post is too long.
TO THE SHEEP-CAVE!

Re:Where in the bible does it say not to do this?

[FrostedChaos]

The ultimate goal of these studies will take us further away from a "sheep-man" and closer to a sheepish organ incubator. Stem cells become their ultimate tissues/organs through many steps, some of which we can recognize and manipulate even today. Heck, right down the hall from me, they're making neurons and next to them, they're making bone cells hoping to find treatments for things like osteogenesis imperfecta ...see Mr. Glass in "Unbreakable" :D

I understand that the intentions are good, and that probably a lot of good will come out of these studies. I get more enthusiastic about stem cells with each passing year, as I age :)

... and of course the people who made these sheep would rather program the cells to JUST become a heart or JUST a liver for example. They don't want "sheep-human" freaks. That'd be a little hard to sell to their funding agency. hehe. So bottom line, a human liver does not a sheep-man make IMO.

The intentions of inventors and funding sources are not always honored. The Internet was originally developed to provide a redundant communication network for military installations-- not to bring you spam about v1g4a. A lot of the exotic materials developed for the space program have become commonplace in the commercial world. Dr. Albert Hofman originally believed that LSD would be used as a tool of psychotherapy.

I can already predict that some people will find the idea of animal implants to be pretty interesting. It might be possible to give someone claws like a cat or a tail, for example. You may find this outlandish and bizarre, but there's probably already some subculture of people on the internet who think it's just a great idea. Once we better understand how to create chimerism, the boundary between humans and animals will be weakened.

Of course, chimeras are small potatoes, really. Genetic engineering is where it's at. Eventually, we will have to somewhat rethink our ideas about what is human. There are a lot of philosophical details you could go into, but as a practical matter, I think eventually we will come to treat anything that can function effectively in society as human. It's the only "humane" solution, heh.

Re:Where in the bible does it say not to do this?

[Bad D.N.A.]

So religion is deliberately region-encoded?

Um, no.

My sarcasm flag was flying high.

Re:THE most important question related to this top

[glwtta]

Ok, if I ate a sheep that was 15% human would that make me 15% cannibal?

Even better - it's now possible to only be 85% pervert!

oh god

[Thaelon]

Queue bestiality joke in 5...4...3...

Run!

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh oh, life imitates art: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0779982/

Damned Archons

[Anonymous Coward]

Aeons unite!

OSQ: Obligatory Simpsons Quote

[Anonymous Coward]

> Why is your focus on the the perceived attitude of the scientists. Attitude does not matter at all.

I think your octo-parrot would disagree!

"Awwwwk! Polly shouldn't be!"

Sheeple

[Anonymous Coward]

This brings a whole new level of meaning to the term "sheeple"

Re:Human arrogance towards life and God

[drinkypoo]

Only such people would create cross-species life between humans and sheep and we deserve everything that happens to us. That 'E. Coli' disease stuff that we will now live with forever that resulted from our late-70s recombinant DNA experiments with a ubiquitous bacterium was just a very minor warmup. We do it because we can.

If your contention is that diseases are mistakes, then can you explain the ones that aren't our fault? Did your God accidentally create them? And if so, doesn't that put the lie to his supposed infallibility?

Oh wait. Those diseases must be part of god's plan. Unlike our actions, which are somehow outside of his control.

It's no wonder people have a hard time taking people like you seriously; your faith is so utterly inconsistent.

Old new

[Adelvillar]

This thing pales in comparison to the fact that we have humans that are 100% sheep.

Is this about this movie:

[ergean]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMp8mSRiHow

I've known humans

[BadERA]

... who are 15% sheep. I've also known humans who are 100% sheep. baaah, baaah, follow the leader. Isn't that what mass media, modern government and psychotropic drugs in the water supply are for?

I wonder if I can get me a sheep liver in the near future ... and would it handle my alcohol consumption any better?

Greaaat

[Anonymous Coward]

Another way to fuel the overpopulation of the planet.

We create life, as a pre-emptive measure, to ensure that we can save a life, by taking a life.

Does anyone else think that although totally amazing tech, maybe we're a pack of totally egotistical morons for inventing it? Does anyone else feel bad for the poor damn sheep?!

What's going to happen when we can cure all kinds of things and prevent death in many cases? Shall we just muster up a few more natural resources to support all this extra life? Oh wait, we already ran out. Maybe we can introduce population control, so the governments can decide who gets saved with sheep-grown organs, and who is a nasty terrorist or useless old person and should die. Yeh, that sounds like a good idea.

And then, all these extra people can work on some other cool new technology, so that the human race can get a little closer to it's ultimate goal, the reason we're doing all this, which is.... uhm, what was it again?

Living things get sick, and they die. Yaknow, the whole natural selection thing? Maybe we should invest some cash into finding out why humans seem to believe that they're above it.

This can only end one way...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't say you weren't warned!!

Reminds me of a joke

[Tablizer]

Once these businessmen spotted a suspicious looking guy in the country-side while looking for a place to stay for the night. They decided to watch him from a distance for a while. It turned out he snuck around and [bleeped] sheep, one after another. Horrified, the businessmen knocked on the door of a nearby house. A young girl answered the door.

The businessmen said, "Little girl, we need to use the phone to call the police. There's a weirdo out there doing bad things to sheep".

The girl then said, "That's no weirdo, that's my Daaaaaaaad".

Date one

[Tablizer]

I'd date one. At least you don't have to buy her a fur coat.

Re:Date one

[bill_mcgonigle]

I'd date one. At least you don't have to buy her a fur coat.

Are you Scottish?

Re:If the far pro-lifers can be taken at their wor

[ProfessionalCookie]

Two fused cells anyway. Hey- it works for conception!

no offense

[arcite]

"This is taking our abuse of animals WAY too far."

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I think your argument is a few thousand years too late.

Re:no offense

[vandan]

Of course it depends where you draw the line. But my argument stands: this is a new form of abuse, as opposed to the traditional forms of abuse ( farming to eat, and farming of 'beasts of burden' ).

Re:no offense

[Anonymous Coward]

"too late"

You're right. We're far too late. Let's all just ignore it then huh.

Re:no offense

[NerveGas]

Actually, I think that this would be far less abusive. Both in terms of working animals and animals raised for food, the amount of abuse imposed upon them is unbelievable. But once the animal is meant for transplantation (and hence, worth hundres of thousands, instead of hundreds), things will be entirely different. And when you look at the difference between getting sloppilly and ineffectively hit with a "stunner" by an uncaring migrant worker in a meat-packing plant then finishing the process still conscious.... and being anesthetized and dying in your sleep on an O.R. table, I think this would be the biggest step UP in the history of man's dealings with animals.

steve

Re:Human arrogance towards life and God

[rthille]

My question is, does that mean that gophers and moles and such are off limits?

2000AD

[mac1235]

Can Inspector Raam be far away?

Re:Morally bankrupt

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank goodness someone here has a clue. One of the most disturbing things about this is the amount of people making jokes about this abomination. Hey idiots, this isn't funny.

Lets put this in a more human context... Let's say I use your Mother's body to grow me some spare organs, and kill her off when I need them. Sounds really harsh when you say 'your Mother' instead of 'sheep' huh. Ever wonder why?

Speaking of why... exactly why do we need more people?

Brutal

[unity100]

So it has come to organ harvesting now - killing animals not only for their 'meat', but for their organs.

fucking brutal society.

Re:Brutal

[BadERA]

Oh please.

First of all, wouldn't you rather see an animal more fully utilized, rather than partially utilized, if it's going to be killed for our uses anyway?

Secondly, please, take the melancholy emo-ness elsewhere. Would you rather see children die of organ failure, or sheep be euthanized for the purpose of saving said child?

Re:Brutal

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd rather see the child die. Why should the sheep die to save the human?

Re:Brutal

[unity100]

id rather not have a fully blown brutal exploitation industry on the works.

there are numerous ways to 'save the children'. not only that, but the number and percentage of children that were to be saved this way are negligibly low. you know as well as i do that these are for the aging generation.

and for that generation - they shouldnt have smoked for 30 years, and should have kept a healthy diet.

Human arrogance towards animals.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only does the Bible stress that nature reflects God's glory and greatness, but the Scriptures also make it clear that humans have been given a special responsibility to protect and care for the natural environment. Yet ironically, this Biblical mandate has often been used as a license to despoil and destroy instead of an obligation to protect and preserve.

Yeah - They're Called "Progressive" Democrats

[Anonymous Coward]

Baa!

The Real Question

[Nom du Keyboard]

The real question is, at what percent does breeding cease to be cross-breeding?

Didn't I see this...

[element-o.p.]

...on a Saturday Night Live skit once?

Oh yeah?

[raehl]

I bet my God can beat up your God!

Two genes good, four genes bad!

[Pvt_Waldo]

Or something like that. When they start walking on two feet, I'm going to worry.

Yes, 15%

[Ungrounded Lightning]

These sheep are not 15% human, there is no such thing - they're 15% antigenically identical. There is no percentage at which they will become human, because their basic structure is still of a sheep!

These are not hybrids or the result of genetic engineering. They are chimeras: Organisms composed of two separate clone of cells. Some of the cells are 100% human, some are 100% sheep. The total animal has 15% of its cells being 100% human (surface antigens and all), not 100% of its cells having 15% human traits. (The immune system matured in the presence of both so it doesn't attack either.)

The cells are in coherent lumps, too. Entire organs - including the brain - may be 100% human tissue. (Though they may be morphologically similar to the sheep equivalent because they were exposed mainly to sheep growth factors while forming.)

Re:Yes, 15%

[Xtravar]

Finally! Brain transplants!

Re:Yes, 15%

[Anonymous Coward]

Not quite. Co-culturing cells allows them to exchange proteins and even fragments of their DNA.

This is the very same reason that none of the currently aproved human embryonic stem cell lines can be uses to cure humans: these cells have been grown on the mouse feeder cells back in 2001 and are expressing some mouse proteins (and are thus no longer 100% human).

Re:Yes, 15%

[zobier]

Entire organs - including the brain - may be 100% human tissue. Um, do sheep with human brains think like humans?

Re:Yes, 15%

[Anonymous Coward]

Do humans dream of human sheep?

Re:Yes, 15%

[jimicus]

So in theory, you could have a brain transplant from a sheep and it would work fine, except your vocabulary would be little more than "Baaa" and you'd do nothing but eat grass all day?

Re:Yes, 15%

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you could transplant your brain into a sheep and when that sheep body gets old transplant it into another one. Finally we'll be able to live forever... as sheep!

Re:Yes, 15%

[rubycodez]

do people-brained sheep count sheep-brained people to fall asleep?

Re:Morally bankrupt

[raehl]

Ever wonder why?

Because I'd eat a sheep but wouldn't eat my mother?

high quality/low maintenance wool!

[f1055man]

"It rubs the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again."

Re:THE most important question related to this top

[umbrellasd]

According to the article, it depends on which part you eat. Liver = you sicko! Hair pie = OMG, you sicko! Hooves = you're fine.

Re:THE most important question related to this top

[Frozen Void]

Humans and animals are made of the same building blocks.
Think about this,next time.

Gives a new meaning

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess this gives a new meaning to the word "sheeple".

Re:Human arrogance towards life and God

[truckaxle]

Our arrogance knows no limits.

The arrogance just may be in your court! Thinking you know full well Gods position on this - you don't but that does not stop you from spouting nonsense and assuming some imagined morally superior position.

Re:THE most important question related to this top

[Rakshasa Taisab]

I think you mean 15% pervert, the creature is 85% sheep.

Re:Now all we need...

[skuzzlebutt]

Bra-vo! You could spend a lifetime without getting a better setup for that joke! (wipes tear)

Black Sheep

[Repton]

You have to be careful genetically modifying sheep — you never know what will happen..

Since the sheep are chimeras...

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Since the tweaked sheep are chimeras, and humans/sheep don't hybridize, mating two of them (from two different donors for the human cells), if it produced anything at all, would produce either fully-sheep or fully-human offspring.

Human offspring seem likely, since the part of the sheep replaced/augmented with human stem cells was the part that produces the internal organs - presumably including the reproductive tract. (Can somebody more familiar with embryogenesis check me on that?)

First generation might be premature or have nasty birth defects due to being raised in the mostly-sheep chimera's body, with most of its biological feedback mechanisms "programmed" to produce lambs and some to produce humans. Second generation would likely be fully normal people or sheep.

Re:Morally bankrupt

[Anonymous Coward]

>Most, if not all, of their ailments are related to their excessive consumption of meat, combined with their consumption of artificial pesticides & fertilizers, their proximity to industrial waste, etc.

So, because they're not part of the "most if not all" section of your argument all babies with holes in their hearts deserve death as their punishment? I suppose you'll just claim it's the baby's fault the mother eats so much meat (as all life's ailments are clearly caused by this).

And that's just one thing that can go wrong with babies. I could list a whole other host of baby organs that go bad, and, hell, a whole host of genetic diseases that damage organs that exist in both vegetarians and non-vegetarians alike, but I guess they're all just collateral damage in your quest to rid the world of animals that aren't roaming around in the open.

Since we're dealing with over-generalized arguments, how bout this one: Considering how few animals actually die of old age, would you prefer animals dying by vicious predators looking for lunch that don't care that their claws take a few minutes to kill, predators looking to play a game with another animal that don't care that their games leave an animal in excruciating pain for hours on end until something else finishes them off, or a split-second shot to the head?

Re:THE most important question related to this top

[IgLou]

Too true, this should make Haggis interesting.

"Ok kids, guess which part is people!"

Mice Next

[cyphercell]

I hope they do mice next, so I can have a small tribe of The Littles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Littles/.

Re:THE most important question related to this top

[ArsonSmith]

How do you know the previous poster wasn't a sheep you insensitive clod.

I for one

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one greet our sheepman overlords..

Re:Morally bankrupt

[vandan]

Can't help but notice your signature:

American Democracy: One more candidate than Communism.

How do you figure that? Do you believe the line that Stalinism == Communism?

As for your actual response, you're demonstrating about as much maturity here as you are in your signature. Well done.

the best part

[Anonymous Coward]

And you don't even have to prove they are terrorists. Just accuse them of being terrorists and they have no rights.

Re:Morally bankrupt

[grolschie]

Farming animals for food is taking this sacred game and twisting it into something that lacks both sanctity and game

Someone wise once said: "If God didn't want us to eat animals, He wouldn't have made them out of meat".

Re:Morally bankrupt

[vandan]

So, because they're not part of the "most if not all" section of your argument all babies with holes in their hearts deserve death as their punishment?

Oh Jesus! It's a "won't someone please think of the children" argument! Punishment! Wow you're a real thinker. I thought this was the stuff of Simpsons cartoons, not reality. That's what I get for doubting Simpsons I suppose. If children have holes in their hearts ( and it's important to note that no children actually DO have holes in their hearts ), then they have a genetic defect that we don't want to pollute the gene pool with. Sure their parents will want the best medical care for them, and which parents wouldn't? But lets not sensationalize things, OK? If babies have holes in their hearts at the moment ( which they don't ), then they die. Sad, but that's life, and human society goes on with some shred of decency.

And that's just one thing that can go wrong with babies. I could list a whole other host of baby organs that go bad, and, hell, a whole host of genetic diseases that damage organs that exist in both vegetarians and non-vegetarians alike, but I guess they're all just collateral damage in your quest to rid the world of animals that aren't roaming around in the open.

Still crying over phantom babies with holes in their hearts? Jesus Christ, wake up to yourself man! You're just stated that these people have genetic diseases. When you find a genetic disease in someone, you do what you can to ease their suffering, while trying to prevent that disease from being propogated further into the gene pool. You don't slaughter everything in sight so that their disease can spread throughout the gene pool. You need to get some perspective and stop thinking of the children. Your comment about collateral damage is particularly cynical, since that's exactly how you'd describe the animals involved in your mutilation festival.

The last paragraph takes absurdity to an as-yet unheard of height. I'm flabergasted. You are amongst the fairies dude, well and truly.

Prior Art

[Joebert]

The better not try to patent it, I guarentee my Uncle billy-bob has prior art on mixing sheep & human genes.

What they're not saying

[Anonymous Coward]

The had to put the sheep down because it kept bleating

KIIIILLLLL MEEEEEEEEEE

Kramer was right

[Anonymous Coward]

The article only mentions the innocuous experiments with sheep -- it says nothing about the military efforts to develop a race of pig-men. A new breed of warrior that is half-man and half-pig will soon be dominating our society!

Re:Kramer was right

[Anonymous Coward]

Excellent. Once these pig-men make up a significant percentage of the world's shock troops, war will become far more popular. Just think, you can kill an enemy combatant with a Claymore mine, and you get free hot fresh bacon in the deal! Instant resupply FTW.

Re:Kramer was right

[textstring]

You've got it all wrong. The pig-men will rise up to take power after assuming their position in the LAPD after the great coming of Duke Nukem Forever signals them.

Pigs?

[Upaut]

I thought the first animal to be used as an organ factory would be a pig... Organs are roughly the same sized, takes minimal land to grow them, grow up faster, and already have a shitload of similarities. Aside from a (sugar complex?) that initially makes the tissues REALLY toxic... Which is why every now we hear that they have altered pigs to lack this (complex?)...

Is there any reason to use pigs over sheep?

Ethics anyone?

[guruevi]

I wonder if they are trying to desensitize us to circumstances like the movie "The Island" portrays. Creating clones of humans for the sake of replacement parts. This sheep is now 15% percent human, so we can harvest them.

But when it becomes 50% human, or even 75%, at what point do we call them humans and at what point do we give them rights as humans. I recently raised the same question on another forum and everybody was all up in arms that we couldn't kill clones of ourselves so we can replace our own 'malfunctioning' parts because they are human. Now these ...things?... are partly human, at what point can we stop killing them for our own good?

Re:Ethics anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

"at what point do we give them rights as humans"

At what point do we give them rights as sheep?

There are now a lot of people bringing this up and a total of ZERO responses that actually explain why a human has a greater right to live than any other animal.

Re:Ethics anyone?

[PermanentMarker]

Ethics,
How about the allready killed animals who's organs go recycled as dog food, while people suffer from parkinson and other diseases. Simply said those organs are just lost.

Ethics, is alsoo perhaps risk of new cheep/human diseases, viruses normaly adept quickly.
While animals dont live that clean, as we live. Their chanche for infections and infectious environments are risky to our own human race.

Ethics of 20 >50 >70% human.
It is scarry simply said the human will become creatable and have a economicaly lifespan in which it is economical to keep this person at work (we enslave in a way ourselves).
Animals have no presence in law and so a 95% animal who would do our work has no rights.
Thats even more economicaly intresting (and scarry).
However the human apes are allready like that as they are geneticaly close to us, still there is no ape who could do human like work. Altough some ape's like elephants and horses, dogs do work for us allready in specific jobs.

Re:Ethics anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

The organs are irrelevant - it's the brain that makes a human. Some people might also include the capacity to develop a brain, so as to include embryos. We already accept organ transplants between humans, so there's no real argument for organs making a human - otherwise someone with an extra, transplanted kidney would be two people. A sheep with human guts could never have human consciousness, it's not human in any way if its brain is pure sheep.

The Bible XOR Vegetarianism/Veganism

[grolschie]

"And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you even as the green herb have I given you all things." - Genesis 9:2-3

"And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. A nd there came a voice to him ``Rise, Peter, kill and eat''." - Acts 10:11-13

"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils: Speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their conscience seared with a hot iron, Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth." - 1 Tim 4:1-3

Re:The Bible XOR Vegetarianism/Veganism

[HolyCrapSCOsux]

Tim? Wasn't he the wizard in the holy grail?
Then 1 Tim 4:4 must be about the killer rabbit! and making things go BOOM by pointing at a far hill!!

Re:The Bible XOR Vegetarianism/Veganism

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you may have misunderstood the second quote...read on: "But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. And the voice [spake] unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, [that] call not thou common. This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven....While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men (gentiles) seek thee...And he (Peter) said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean. " - Acts 10:14-16,19,28

Re:The Bible XOR Vegetarianism/Veganism

[grolschie]

think you may have misunderstood the second quote...read on: "But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. And the voice [spake] unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, [that] call not thou common. This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven....While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men (gentiles) seek thee...And he (Peter) said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean. " - Acts 10:14-16,19,28

I do understand the context of the story and that it was about the Jew-Gentile relations dilemma that arose in relation to Jewish law and a certain gentile named Cornelius. However, from what I understand from the scriptures, I seriously doubt that God would use as an illustration, a vision containing a command to do something (that a misguided few presume to be) anathema in His eyes. Therefore, God is not opposed to the killing and eating of animals. Scriptures that refer to man's stewardship would however imply that God requires humane treatment of said animals though.

Uh oh

[Dirtside]

This is baaaaad news for sheep.

Re:Uh oh

[Anonymous Coward]

Look! Not enough people are voting these days and they badly need voters to support democracy. So, they are doing what they can -- produce good voters. What is wrong with politics taking a little help from science?

Re:THE most important question related to this top

[MyNymWasTaken]

Humans and plants are made of the same building blocks.
Think about that the next time you eat a salad.

Big deal!

[Viceroy Potatohead]

Only 15% human!

Move along, there's mutton to see here.

Meanwhile in the music world...

[suitepotato]

...George Thorogood was rushing back to the studio, overheard saying something like "baaa-aa-aa-aa-aa-aad to the bone, baaa-aa-aa-aa-aa-aad to the bone".

The real question is

[rfernand79]

Do these sheep dream of androids?

bigger fear

[mr_musan]

never mind cross over viruses, what about sheep people !

Re:bigger fear

[yoder]

I am surprised that this discussion has made it this far without a reference to Island of Dr. Moreau.

Re:bigger fear

[aristotle-dude]

never mind cross over viruses, what about sheep people! Welcome to slashdot. You must be new here.

Obsessive Compulsive Comment

[dubz]

I, for one, welcome our new woolly overlords.

So they finally agree

[Anonymous Coward]

A new zealander shagging a sheep constantly makes the poor sheep exactly 15 percent human....

Sheep wool sweaters

[snowleopard10101]

Now in stores! Sweaters: 85% wool, 15% pubes.

Bush creates humans that are 99% sheep . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

It is all in the subject!

Re:Human arrogance towards life and God

[Anonymous Coward]

not as long as you can find someone to hold it still for you!

In other news...

[had3l]

Sheep Create Humans That Are Only 15 Percent Scientist.

Re:Morally bankrupt

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. You care if your mother dies, and don't care if the sheep die. I'm sure they would differ with you, but of course why would you care?

We've evolved this ability to consider the feelings of other animals but are ignoring it out of convenience and our self centred desire not endure the pain of death.

And just to address a few other posts that missed the point entirely, no, killing them quickly does not make it any less egotistical.

Re:Hillbillies?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but you left out the part about those stupid uncultured bible quoting half retarded walmart shopping plastic burning flag wielding love George Bush or or else white people.

They even look 15% more human

[MrKaos]

From my understanding there is a large stock of great apes held by pharmaceutical companies infected with AIDS, herpes and other nasty diseases. Since we have already made the "ethical" leap by infecting these 99.9% almost human animals in the first place, perhaps we could actually make their suffering mean something instead of euthanising them? While there could be benefits of studying human disease in 15% human animals, it would beg the question of whether these animals would live long enough to study the diseases that affect the human condition, alas IANAMD.

I just seems ironic that the 85% sheep in human populations have influenced our policy making process so much that it is actually easier to make an animal 15% more human than use 100% human stem cell stock to treat human disease. I just wonder how we would handle an incident where, after transplants start occuring, animal disease makes the jump to human population, Bird flu anybody?

Maybe there is a reason in nature we haven't encountered yet that made us different from the animals we eat, no matter how much we try to change them (or individually customise in this case). Will the patient be allowed to dine on the rest of the animal and perhaps make sheep skin boots from the skin? or would that be going too far?

Once transplants start occuring then the pandora's box is open and we are on a very slippery slope. Unless handled with great care technology like this exposes us all to enormous risks. We simply throw away foetuses from failed IVF attempts, so why is it so hard for us to make the ethical leap to develop 100% human stem cell derived organ transplant technology using this otherwise wasted human life?

Wouldn't it be easier

[warm sushi]

...to create a full human but with a sheep's brain?

Or did I just weird everyone out?

Why do Scotsmen...?

[Kozz]

Q: Why do Scotsmen wear kilts?

A: Zippers scare the sheep.

Re:Why do Scotsmen...?

[rjshields]

I don't know about Scotsmen, but there's a lot of Welshman in their sheep!!!1

I guess...

[Anonymous Coward]

they added a big fat american ass to the sheep!!!!

Crikey! She's a real beauty!

[jamrock]

"When they get to 51% human can you marry them?"

Only in Australia.

Re:Crikey! She's a real beauty!

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean New Zealand!!!!

The comments are hillarious

[Anonymous Coward]

I think we may be repeating history. We probably had great technology and did it thousands of years ago and destroyed ourselves almost completely. Few humans survived and started over. That is why there are these myths of all these half human half animals.

- Jeff Reynolds, san antonio, tx

Priceless

Dirty Tleilaxu!

[rockhome]

This reeks of those damnned dirty Bene Tleilax.

Re:Human arrogance towards life and God

[MrKaos]

Our arrogance knows no limits.

The arrogance just may be in your court! Thinking you know full well Gods position on this - you don't but that does not stop you from spouting nonsense and assuming some imagined morally superior position.

Amen to that!

But I think...

[Idbar]

Somebody has to be happy in New Zealand

Living things are suppose to die

[Slashdot Junky]

Living things are suppose to die, period. Not just eventually, but according to how nature decides. Humans are f'ing up the balance here with all this effort to prolong life. If you've lived a pretty good and decently long life, get the hell out of the way when nature starts knocking at your door. The whole idea of using other creatures to grow tissue and organs for humans just doesn't sit well with me at all. It just seems wrong.

Later,
-Slashdot Junky

They are playing with fire...

[gweihir]

Even a small possibility for a new virus crossover is enough to stop all this research immediately, until the base mechanisms are better understood an we can actually fight virusses. Which we cannot do effectively now. Just look at AIDS, herpes, the common cold, etc..

Seems to me the potential to save a few thousand people each year is coupled twith the potential to kill a few million or more in the same time.

Re:And we shall call them...

[Walt Dismal]

These two 15% sheep walk into a bar. The bartender says "What'll ewe have?"

Re:Human arrogance towards life and God

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations. You're lack of any real rational and seeming inability to intelligently address the issue, instead choosing to hurl childish insults, has proved that you're wayyyyy better than those nasty ol' Christians.

Re:Human arrogance towards life and God

[QuantumG]

You can't rationally discuss God.. it's an irrational topic.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

human = sheep

[Treates2]

sheep = human.

Gives a whole new meaning...

[ignavus]

Gives a whole new meaning to the expression "looking a bit sheepish".

Baaaah!

Re:Now all we need...

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck ewe, McDonald!

Re:THE most important question related to this top

[icepick72]

Salads and sheep are made of the same building blocks.
Think about that the next time you feed the salad to the sheep.

Human Germ cells -- an interesting possibility.

[Guppy]

Just wanted to raise an interesting possibility regarding this Sheep/Human Chimera. Depending on how the Chimera is constructed, there is a small chance that some of the component human cells in the embryo end up in the mature animal as part of the germ cell population in the testicles. In that case, a male sheep could, in theory produce human sperm, and be capable of fathering a human child. (Human cells could also end up in a female sheep's ovaries, but given the much more complex process of ovulation and fetus/mother interface, I doubt a pregnancy could occur).

Freaky user comments at The Mail (TFA site)

[xPsi]

Here are a couple actual user comments from site that posted the original article.

1) They have the nerve to call this science!! Give me a total break. This is transmutation and is a crime against humanity. Who are these criminals. Arrest them now!!!

2) I think we may be repeating history. We probably had great technology and did it thousands of years ago and destroyed ourselves almost completely. Few humans survived and started over. That is why there are these myths of all these half human half animals.

WTF? Transmutation=crime against humanity? Repeating history? First, I occasionally need to be reminded that slashdot posters, while frequently irritating, self important, and ill-informed, are still many orders of magnitude brighter and more articulate than typical internet users. Second, I do believe the aforementioned sheep actually have more human cells in them than these folks. I guess it is just wishful thinking that they haven't bred yet (the posters, not the sheep). I'm hoping someone here at slashdot posted those comments as a joke, but somehow I don't think it is the case...

It depends where they end up

[websters]

For example, I don't care if they're on the menu at Milliway's, but I wouldn't want to see them working at Hooters...

Re:THE most important question related to this top

[Purple Screws]

That would be the green part.

Oh really?

[Ticklemonster]

Shoot, they been doing that up in Arkansas for years.

Ah!! another /. member

[Anonymous Coward]

I welcome the new member to /.

Sheep w/ Alien DNA

[CranberryKing]

Why be worried? The aliens did it to make us humans (12% alien / 88% neanderthal) and look how we turned out.

What's 12% of 15? Oh shit! Alien Sheep!

Believe it.

Court Case coming

[baomike]

What percentage does it take to be treated as a human?

Covered before in sci-fi

[Leemeng]

This scenario was covered in Greg Abraham's "Gnota" (1995), though the story involved a piglet and a combat veteran's need for a replacement heart. Bottom line is: some people may get attached to the animals bearing their replacement parts. Also note that such a process would take months, if not years.

Oblig. IRC quote

[Anonymous Coward]

You guys are all sheep!

Australians rejoyce

[had3z]

Because now, it will be easier than ever to get a date online: http://www.adultsheepfinder.com/

Mmmm.

[greycortex]

What does HuMutton taste like?

out of order?

[freaker_TuC]

I would think that's out of order. Ok to procreate but to create new species is beyond our knowledge if we can't even get our own species settled right. To my opinion and it can sound dark; we should not mess too much with crossbreeding ourselves and animals on foodchain; we'd never know what we would become in the future by one stupid little mistake; If any disease gets spread it might be hell to fix this ...

We should not become what we fear the most, movies like the Matrix where humans are harvested sounds very dark for most among us, why would we do the same on partial sheep/partial human chimera? What makes us have that right anyways ? All in the name of science? ok, we need to improve and survive but why not do it on a less risky way?

Nature always finds a way to survive, what if this sheep gets loose and interbreeds, gets >15% human? What if it does not comprehend our actions against its sisters? Does it get civilian rights if it gets to a certain amount of humanity?

NOW they tell me.

[Anonymous Coward]

Dammit! I just ate that liver, with some fava beans and a nice chianti.

Re:THE most important question related to this top

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm 15% not a sheep-fucker.

Chimp's are over 90% human

[tofupup]

Don't see that freaking us out ...
Don't see people rethinking the ethics
of animal testing and eating animals .. oh wait that is what PETA has been
talking about.

Studies indicate that humans and chimps are between 95 and 98.5 percent genetically identical.
source : http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/05/05 20_030520_chimpanzees.html

No Shortage of Organs

[ajs318]

It's not as if there is a shortage of real human organs available. People are dying every day, and many of their organs are in re-usable condition.

Organ donation should be compulsory, with no opting-out allowed. Not even for religious reasons -- we don't allow ritual human sacrifice even when religion calls for it, so why should we allow acts of selfishness beyond the grave when religion calls for it? Living people have rights. Corpses don't.

Re:No Shortage of Organs

[Verminator]

The only thing "that should be compulsory" is for lunatics like you to be prevented from invoking their will upon anyone else.

You can have my liver when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.

Uh, wait...

Scientists Create Sheep That Are 15 Percent Human

[BlueTrin]

Scientists Create Sheep That Are 15 Percent Human ...

Aka journalists ...

Re:Morally bankrupt

[BlueTrin]

If you can fix it why do you want to let someone die ?

baaa

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh boy, now the furries are gonna cum their fursuits. :(

Let us see

[mapkinase]

1. No mention of any peer-reviewed publication in TA
2. Last publication of "Zanjani E" in PubMed dated by Oct of the last year.It is true that most recent ones are on the subject, but the claims supporting "15%" figure are nowhere to be found.
3. Google New search on Zanjani reveals iranian national source, John Birch Society, Christian Broadcasting Network, no major news media.

Let us wait, guys.

Nervous Sheep

[eyendall]

Nevada, where men are men and sheep are nervous.

Re:If the far pro-lifers can be taken at their wor

[hey!]

It's an interesting question. Very interesting. And there are underlying assumptions of the pro life position that people who disagree strongly with them share.

The real question is not "what is human?" for a chimera that was 90% human wouldn't be, strictly speaking, human. The question should be "what is a person"?

I think it can be shown that most people, pro life or not, effectively consider human genetics as a crucial element in personhood. In fact I think many people are inconsistent, as they accept that there might be intelligent aliens who are persons, but assume in terrestrial cases that human genetics is a prerequisite for personhood. I for one have grave doubts whether a definition of personhood based on cognitive abilities could include all humans but completely exclude the great apes. It does not seem rational to exclude great apes from personhood because they differ from humans by a few percent in their genome, but accept the possibility of a completely alien creature being a person. The arguments that the cognitive abilities of great apes make them qualitatively different from humans tend, in my view, to involve the fallacy special pleading.

Technology has forced a reexamination of questions of personhood already, and creatures like these sheep are taking us further down the path where the definition of personhood becomes a crucial issue. I think virtually nobody think these critters count as "15%" of a person.

We're playing God! Al Gore was right!

[Sleeping Kirby]

This is inhuman! This is what Al Gore warned us about! How much longer until we make the deadly man-bear-pig?!?

Big Deal!!

[kavanutz]

Whats the big deal, they have been doing this with goats for years!! http://youtube.com/watch?v=H1dxtto2-WY

Re:Human arrogance towards life and God

[dtjohnson]

If your contention is that diseases are mistakes, then can you
explain the ones that aren't our fault? Did your God accidentally
create them? And if so, doesn't that put the lie to his supposed
infallibility?

My contention is that creating cross-species life between sheep and
humans is an unbelievably reckless thing to do that could only be done
by arrogant people who do not respect all life as God's creation.
  The disease called 'E. Coli' disease in the media is caused by a
strain of Escherichia coli (0157:H7)
created in the laboratory and accidently released into the wild that
produces a deadly toxin causing severe illness in humans. Deaths and
illness from the strain were first observed in 1982.

Humans create enormous amounts of disease every day by poor sanitation,
inadequate nutrition, poor living conditions, war, exotic species
migration, releasing toxic substances into the environment, letting
greed guide our use of antibiotics, etc. The reckless creation of
cross-species life between humans and sheep is just one more in a long
list of human-caused misery driven by our failure to love our
neighbors.

Re:Human arrogance towards life and God

[drinkypoo]

My contention is that creating cross-species life between sheep and humans is an unbelievably reckless thing to do that could only be done by arrogant people who do not respect all life as God's creation.

Many of us do not believe in your god and still would not be doing this at this stage of our knowledge.

I personally believe that all GMOs should be quarantined at the highest level of protection until they can be accurately evaluated. That means airlocks, chemical baths, canned air, the works.

Humans create enormous amounts of disease every day by poor sanitation, inadequate nutrition, poor living conditions, war, exotic species migration, releasing toxic substances into the environment, letting greed guide our use of antibiotics, etc. The reckless creation of cross-species life between humans and sheep is just one more in a long list of human-caused misery driven by our failure to love our neighbors.

I will agree with this readily enough. Of course, the people running the governments that create these problems invariably claim to be religious...

And a majority of the people who allow these governments to persist, likewise, are religious.

It doesn't seem like god is too interested.

luckly

[namekuseijin]

Better than "The Island" movie, I guess. :)

These were engineered for the Skittles Commercial

[WillfulActs]

The first thing that came to my mind was the Sheepboys from the Skittles commercial.

It's finally a reality! (Jibberjabbering not included)

I wonder how they taste?

[meburke]

Long pork raised in sheep?

Re:I wonder how they taste?

[azadrozny]

Like chicken!

well, now you can really say

[Punch-Drunk Slob]

people are sheep

help!

[extern_void]

If sheep is 15% human, am i 85% sheep?

We know what market they're aiming for

[whitroth]

So, they're making sexier companions for, as U. Utah Phillips put it, "I'm from Utah, where the men are men, and the sheep are scared. I'm from Utah, where the only way you get virgin wool is from sheep that can outrun the Mormons and the Republicans".

          mark "was not going to insult the Scots by putting them in
                          with Mormons and Republicans"

Return of the Egyptians

[Anonymous Coward]

Took civilization this long to return to the pre-Egyptian biotechnology. We surpassed them in electro-mechanics no doubt but now we can start seeing pictures of halfies. And real things too! I always laught when the only explanation the archeologists can give for drawings is religion. That's a modern trait - egocentrism: "The pre-Egyptians lived before us so could not have possible had technology we do not!" Tell that to the European who thought he invented the cannon!

In a related story...

[Anonymous Coward]

Several prominent universities have discounted this claim insisting they have been turning out people that were 85% sheep for years...

Re:If the far pro-lifers can be taken at their wor

[Anonymous Coward]

I think virtually nobody think these critters count as "15%" of a person.

Yeah, but as long as they lean the right way, they'll still let them vote in Chicago.

reprimande

[N3wsByt3]

"I try to reprimand my fellow atheists occasionally when they step out of line[]"

If you reprimande me, you're not my fellow atheist!

(well, I'm trying to uphold the sheep-like groupthink here ;-)

Maybe I should say: "Never noticed it!" :-)

"We're good, normal people who just happen to not believe in a deity or deities."

Heh. Well, even that could be construed as: 'good, normal people = do not believe in a deity'.

But, seriously, one has fanatics on every side. Personally, I don't care too much as long as xians (and the like) leave other people alone. Being a libertarian atheist, I think the right of people to choose to believe in anything they want is paramount, as long as it's confined to a personal matter. That said - and here many xians feel offended - one can not give people who believe in the idea of a 'god' (as described in the bible) any more credibility than those who would believe in Allah, or in Shiva, or Inti (the Inca Sun god), or in tooth-fairies. Believers don't seem to comprehend that this is inherent to the fact that there is equal proof for any of those concepts (which is actually none at all). If one wants to remain consistent; if one gives value to one such concept or 'belief', one has to give as much value to the other concepts, since they all have the same validity.

It is strange, then, that xians often portray atheists as intolerant, while, in fact, it are they that find it difficult to accept that someone believing in a magical dragon in his garage has the same credibility as someone claiming there is a god. In a pragmatic sense, they'll probably think: 'A dragon?! That guy must be a nutcase!'. So why do they get upset if some people say the same of them? I too think such a guy is a nutcase, I confess (though strictly speaking, one would have to follow the reasoning of Carl Sagan on this, to be fair). But then, why not think Xians (and their ilk) are nutcases too, for exactly the same reasons?

But you know, that's ok: people have the right to believe in crazy things, it's their right - as long as they don't bother others with it. Many people think homeopatic water works too; they may believe so if they wish - as long as they don't expect me to tax-pay the social-medical expenses of it. I, for one, think it's more valuable to use logic and rational thinking, when debating the value of a claim. Everything else amounts to opinion-spouting, and there are thirteen in a dozen of that.

Re:reprimande

[Fordiman]

"That said - and here many xians feel offended - one can not give people who believe in the idea of a 'god' (as described in the bible) any more credibility than those who would believe in Allah, or in Shiva, or Inti (the Inca Sun god), or in tooth-fairies."

One of my favorite points to make: The degree to which a nation of individuals is religious should have no bearing on how the government is run. The second you introduce one religions' values, regardless of how ubiquitous you think they are, you've oppressed someone. Keep religion out of politics, and life will fare much more easily.

15% is way underrated!!!!! They are total human

[ady1]

and here is the proof:

Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!

Re:Morally bankrupt

[vandan]

If you have to harvest and kill animals for body parts just to keep someone alive, why would you do that? The answer comes down to how you see yourself and the animals in your environment. You, as others, clearly believe that you are somehow different from animals. You're not, and people who argue that you are, are on a very slippery slope. You would also argue that, for example, you should have the right to butcher Muslim, or Jewish, or Hispanic babies for body parts for your children, because you are somehow different to them.

There's a big difference between what you accuse me of ... wanting to 'let someone die', and what YOU want to do, MURDERING.

Sheep pickup lines in Afghanistan..

[SonicSpike]

"Hey Sheep... do you have any human in ya? Would you like some!?"

heh

Re:Morally bankrupt

[BlueTrin]

No you see, in my mind it is the other way around, I have never seen a dolphin or my cat: - care if the thing I gave him to eat are vegetarian - protest in the street against the use of other animals - complained about the piece of fur it uses as a bed ...

really?

[namco]

15% human at a cellular level??

hhhmmm...I wonder by how many percent you'd have to be in order to qualify for human rights??

I bet there's no upper or lower bound limits....

This definition satisfies all your objections

[GPS Pilot]

I for one have grave doubts whether a definition of personhood based on cognitive abilities could include all humans but completely exclude the great apes.

Here's one relatively simple way to define personhood: if the average intelligence of a species exceeds a certain threshold, then all members of that species are persons.

If you pick the right threshold, this definition makes none of the apes persons, while all humans are persons, including the few severely handicapped humans who are less intelligent than exceptionally smart apes.

I think virtually nobody think these critters count as "15%" of a person.

No, but at some point these creations will become sufficiently human-like that it would be wrong not to begin to grant them human rights. And that's going to be a very ugly, subjective debate. One possible outcome of that debate is that it will be determined that not even humans deserve human rights.

...stupid comment

[cgm88]

How come the sheeps doesn't launch it's own immune attack and get rid of the invading human cells? I'm confoozled.