Scientists Create Mice From 2 Fathers

An anonymous reader writes "Using stem cell technology, reproductive scientists in Texas, led by Dr. Richard R. Behringer at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, have produced male and female mice from two fathers. The study was posted Wednesday at the online site of the journal Biology of Reproduction. The achievement of two-father offspring in a species of mammal could be a step toward preserving endangered species, improving livestock breeds, and advancing human assisted reproductive technology. It also opens the provocative possibility of same-sex couples having their own genetic children, the researchers note."

Comments

In b4 shitstorm

[Anonymous Coward]

It also opens the provocative possibility of same-sex couples having their own genetic children, the researchers note.

This isn't going to go down well with the God Squad.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[Anonymous Coward]

Please. As a religious person? I honestly don't give a fuck. All you're doing is mixing around biomaterials. Humans have been doing that on some level for thousands of years and what was done here could probably have been done decades ago if anyone cared to.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[Opportunist]

A very rational approach to it, but do you think the less rational religious types will concur?

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[Redlazer]

Hey man! Don't go sneaking that rational shit in here - you're not allowed!

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[h4rm0ny]

This isn't going to go down well with the God Squad.

They should be fine with it - lots of precedents. Eve was created from Adam's rib which was a 1 Father, 0 mother scenario. Mary had Jesus by God which was a 1 Mother, 0 Father scenario (God is generally regarded as the spiritual father. I don't think many Christians envisage actual physical sex with God as evidenced by the virginity of Mary remaining intact). Pygmalian married a statue that was brought to life which was a 0 Fathers, 0 Mothers scenario for the statue. The Bible has contained this sort of stuff long before we even knew what DNA was.

Also, a lot of religious people have objected to same-sex marriages on the grounds that they believe marriage should only be between people capable of having children together. This will resolve that road-block so they can be okay with same-sex marriage.

I'm certain that religious people will love this.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[arekusu_ou]

“Rational arguments don’t usually work on religious people. Otherwise, there wouldn’t be religious people.” by Dr. Gregory House

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[stms]

The whole gay marriage debate is completely moronic on both sides. If homosexually is genetic then by that same merit its also a biological imperfection and should be fixed (just as pedophilia and bestiality). If it's a choice then you shouldn't tell people what to choose so long as their freedom to make that choice doesn't infringe on other peoples well-being or freedom.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[tirefire]

I've heard (yes, that is my citation) that there is almost a 100% overlap between people who are against stem cell research and people who are against abortion. I've also heard (two sources now!) that anti-abortion groups are largely behind stem-cell hatred, because they claim that if stem cells harvested from aborted fetuses are used in research, the mild "gift to science" of abortion will sway more pregnant women into choosing abortion than keeping the child. Or even that "some women" who did not want children would conceive for the express purpose of having an abortion.

I thought it was crazy at first, too. Then I realized that if one or more single-issue lobbying groups were involved, it's almost stupid enough to be true.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[hal2814]

No. they were Michael and Joey. And the daughter's name is Nicole. Judge Margaret frequently visits the trio to make sure they are getting along.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[mwvdlee]

If homosexuality is a biological imperfection, then that in itself gives no reason to fix it. Evolution relies on the existance biological imperfections and, completely coincidentally, biological diversity is so prevalent that nobody even knows what "biological perfection" would be.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[Opportunist]

All these arguments are not really something that makes me say anything aside of "so?".

Frankly, if people want to get pregnant for the purpose of selling the embryo for research, what's the problem? I care more about the life and living quality of those alive than about the life of those that might be alive some day, provided nothing goes wrong during pregnancy. And I seriously question how "compassionate" and "moral" people are who see it the other way around.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[commodore64_love]

I'm religious but I figure it's God's job to enforce his rules, not mine.

If he disapproves of cloning or babies from same-sex couples, then He'll strike them down. If not then I guess He approves. (shrug) Not my laws; not my job to enforce them on others.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't imagine the above isn't a troll, but just in case the abortion argument really is still in the "stone age" as it were, I'll bite:

The way to understand the anti-abortion mindset is extremely simple, but very difficult (apparently) for many supposedly "rational" thinkers. They believe that a person is alive and has rights from the moment of conception. Potential life, in their eyes, is to be as revered as full life-- in fact in some ways more so because it has no adequate defenses or ability to survive without help*.

Simply put, any act that ends the life of another (in this case even an abortion) must be justified-- and for many people there is even more simply no justification for the taking of another life. To get a feel for this type of mindset just replace the word "abortion" with murder, and then try to argue the typical "right to privacy", "betterment of other people" arguments.

It's much harder to justify scientific research for the betterment of mankind when the process to procure the research material involves murdering children-- which is exactly what these believers think.

More importantly, it is important to realize that as "silly" as this idea may seem to you, the fact that the question is far more philosophical than scientific means that you can't simply disregard this option because you don't agree. Many people hold at least some personal belief about when "life" starts-- the fact that you've chosen one point in the timeline of development and that someone else has chosen another does not discount their opinion.

Because we are dealing with one of the most basic and agreed upon human rights-- the right to life-- the argument understandably gets heated when one side believes that the other is committing what they believe is murder in order to improve their own lives.

*(It should be noted that this is in no way a new idea, and has existed even in ancient cultures where the murder or beating of a pregnant woman would be dealt with more severely than with one who was not-pregnant. In "ye olden days" when having a baby was even more dangerous than it is today, and the infant death rate was extremely high, the idea of "potential life" was very important to early peoples.)

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[stms]

See wikipedia for Genetic disorders

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[Kvasio]

Yes, Adam Carrington and Steve Carrington.

What did you expect, mythbusters?

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[clone52431]

Pygmalian married a statue that was brought to life which was a 0 Fathers, 0 Mothers scenario for the statue.

Um, that one isn’t from the Bible.

I'm certain that religious people will love this.

Some might, some might not. The prevailing attitude, however, would probably be ambivalence. Or... “hey, make your own dirt!”

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[tom17]

I was under the impression that they harvest embryonic stem cells from unused eggs when they are doing IVF? They re-implant the ones that took and discard the others (Or use them for embryonic stem cell research). This has nothing to do with abortion.

Or am I mistaken here?

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[gstoddart]

Eve was created from Adam's rib which was a 1 Father, 0 mother scenario.

Technically then, it's 1 Brother, isn't it? Adam can't be Eve's Father -- it's more like a twin, isn't it? And, I've never been really clear on who Cain and Abel might have married.

It's all very confusing.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[fyngyrz]

If homosexually is genetic then by that same merit its also a biological imperfection and should be fixed (just as pedophilia and bestiality).

No. Doesn't follow. Homosexuals alter the balance of the sexes for reproductive purposes; they often provide a different and useful set of sensibilities to the community (Alan Turing, Isaac Newton, Plato, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Alan Turing, Francis Bacon, Henry David Thoreau...) If your thesis is that the only value proposition in the human race is that of reproduction, then you're just being silly. We're intelligent; we have our own uses for our fellows that go far beyond if they choose to breed or not.

If it's a choice then you shouldn't tell people what to choose so long as their freedom to make that choice doesn't infringe on other peoples well-being or freedom.

And if their "biological imperfection" doesn't infringe on other people's well being or freedom, and the "imperfect" person is well satisfied? Einstein could be viewed, using your simplistic "not the same as the rest of us" criteria as being afflicted with a "biological imperfection"... would you have "fixed" him? Or Alan Turing? I mean, really. You need to think this over a little more comprehensively.

The whole gay marriage debate is completely moronic on both sides.

Marriage, at present, is a state that alters access to health care, access to one's SO in the hospital, taxes and other issues. This is entirely aside from the warm and fuzzy feeling one might enjoy if "married" is a state one admires. Consequently, there are very practical reasons to seek (and not to seek) marriage. The obvious spit here is over the contractual and ritual components. Myself, I see no reason that marriage should provide any contractual elements at all. If you want the ritual and then choose to proclaim that the ritual means something to you, then by all means, have at it. If you want to enter into a contract with someone, you should do so. The mixing of the two is what makes marriage such a mess.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[glebovitz]

I don't think it is about compassion or morality. It is about a very narrow faith based agenda that does not leave room for rational or critical thinking. It is the same thinking that makes some religious groups anti masturbation because it is "spilling the seed". Doesn't matter that science shows that the seed is "spent" whether or not it is ejaculated.

The more we learn about life's processes, that more we demonstrate that it is bases on chemistry and physics and less on mysticism. The article isn't demonstrating new concepts, but it is showing we can overcome some of the previously encountered technical obstacles in life sciences.

The article doesn't discuss homosexual relationships or parenting. It merely says that the process could someday produce offspring from two mail donors. It also says that there may be a way to use the IPS technique to generate both male and female children from two female donors. This is a really big deal because up to now two female donors could only produce female offspring.

IMHO, the real ethical controversy will come about when scientists develop or discover an artificial or non human womb to carry the in-vitro produced embryos. Then we can have the discussion about whether or not gender really matters. Until then, two males will still need a female to reproduce.

 

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[tom17]

Isn't the homosexuality trend self-fixing anyway? If 2 guys or 2 girls get together, and stay loyal for ever, they aint passing those genes on. It's kinda self-policing that way. If homosexuality could somehow increase the chances of survival of the species, then it would surely become a dominant gene.

That said, now that we have progressed so far with science, all bets are off. All kinds of genetic defects that would normally get weeded out pretty much straight away in nature, are now able to thrive as we 'fix' all the ailments that they create. All we have done here is fixed yet another (and in so doing we are enabling the homosexuality genes to flourish in future generations).

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[L4t3r4lu5]

All of which just goes to reaffirm my belief that it's just a really good story book, blown totally out of proportion.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[whoop]

You also get into the question of how to decide if some other person is worthless enough to conduct experiments, harvest organs, and whatever on. All through history we've found certain groups of people were considered worth so little it was okay to enslave, experiment, do whatever you want to them. We've gone through the processes and found it is fundamentally not right to treat people like that and moved to stop such practices. It would seem a step backwards than to look at this group and say, "Eh, they are nothing, go ahead and do whatever to them."

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[Farmer Tim]

If homosexually is genetic then by that same merit its also a biological imperfection and should be fixed (just as pedophilia and bestiality).

The notion that homosexuality is a biological imperfection is based on the assumption that it is desirable for 100% of a population to reproduce. This isn't necessarily so; for example, most species of primates have a social hierarchy in which a dominant male which sires the majority of offspring, while subordinate males and non-reproducing females assist in raising the young. By contrast, humans pair bond, and in early society where life expectancy was much shorter and grandparents a rarity it would make sense for a certain percentage of the population remain free agents to assist the reproducing couples in child rearing (and a third gender, half way between male and female, might well be better suited to this role). The importance of this would certainly have declined as society and technology developed and life spans increased, and it's entirely possible that either there hasn't been sufficient time for this gene to disappear, or it has been kept alive by the rise and fall of civilisations.

Whether or not the above is correct, it should be up to the individual to decide whether they want to be "fixed" or not, otherwise you open the door to some extremely nasty social engineering. And I've never heard anyone suggest pedophilia or bestiality have a basis in genetics.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[jav1231]

I, personally, see the hope in stem cell research. But to posit that some women will choose a pregnancy to have their fetuses harvested isn't so far off the mark. One could see a time when they are compensated much like plasma patients.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[compro01]

You are correct. The "stem cells from abortions" is a political windmill, not anything that actually exists.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[Mongoose Disciple]

The whole gay marriage debate is completely moronic on both sides. If homosexually is genetic then by that same merit its also a biological imperfection and should be fixed (just as pedophilia and bestiality).

That doesn't follow, actually. Having all of a species focused on breeding isn't necessarily the most advantageous thing for it. Even at the individual level, depending on circumstances, if I have enough brothers and sisters, the optimal strategy for passing on even the genes I specifically have might be for me to not attempt to breed, but rather to help rear my siblings' children.

Example from nature: bees. Lots of workers, only a few bees who even might breed.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[scubamage]

The mindless Cafetaria-religious folk who live by whatever they're spoonfed from a pulpit? Yeah, they'll be pissed. The people who've actually taken the time to read their respective holy books more than likely won't care. Hell, I'm happy to see it. Though it does make me a little sad that homosexual couples won't adopt as much; that's a lot of kids needing a home who won't get one if this occurs. If it does roll out, I'm hoping there's a price premium on it, like invitro-fertilization so adoption is still encouraged.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[MightyYar]

Isn't the homosexuality trend self-fixing anyway?

I don't think we understand the causes enough to say that. For instance, if male homosexuality is caused by a gene that gives heterosexual females a reproductive advantage, then it will never go away unless we outlaw daughters. Maybe that's what they are up to in China?

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[MasterC0D]

Homosexuality is *not* a choice, it's genetic.

Hormonal changes/fluctuations in the mother influence the development of an embryo's nervous system; specific changes in hormonal levels at a specific point during the later parts of the pregnancy will cause the baby to be born with the predisposition towards homosexuality (and/or changes in behaviour that may be perceived as homosexuality when it really isn't, but that's a different subject).

Whether the person reacts to that disposition or not later in life may be a choice, but the attraction to the same sex that prompts that choice is definitely genetic.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[scubamage]

Funny enough, the most rational speaking I've ever heard from a religious person was from a church astronomer (not astrologer) who worked for the Vatican. Basically he stated that the bible stopped being written around 200AD, and modern science really didn't come to fruition until the 1700's. So the bible should have no bearing whatsoever on modern science. He also stated that people who never read the bible, and are content with whatever their religious leaders tell them are the most dangerous thing in religion today. Its interesting that the most illuminated view I've ever heard was from someone who worked for the church. Check out the movie Religulous with Bill Maher if you're interested; its a great watch.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[Monchanger]

You forget that they'd consider emulating god to be hubris.

You mean except in cases where they offer "clarification" on His words.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[jank1887]

If you trust "The God Makers", then the Mormons believe "God the Father journeyed to earth "from the Starbase Kolob", to have sex with the virgin Mary, in order to provide Jesus with a physical body". Sort of like Zues getting his groove on and whoops, there's Hercules. Of course, if you trust The God Makers, you probably have other issues.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[AlamedaStone]

If homosexuality could somehow increase the chances of survival of the species, then it would surely become a dominant gene.

Ready to have your mind blown? Homosexuality does increase the chances of survival of the species! Yeah, I said it. Have you ever looked at the gender makeup of a human/social services university or masters program? 75-80% female, and maybe between a third to half of the men are gay. That's up to 10x the rate of (male) homosexuality in the general population! Interesting that so many more gay men are interested in working to support others, isn't it?

To put it another way, it is an advantage to the cycle of reproduction that not every adult is a parent. Additional caregivers have value to the species. Gays have been having sex and getting pregnant since before we were sapiens. It's a good thing we have their genetic diversity. In fact, it's not hard to argue that the western "nuclear family" is more detrimental to the species than the queers ever could be. We developed as communities (tribes, villages, etc) with shared parenting responsibilities. A smaller group of caregivers results in less care and supervision of the offspring.

I guess using these arguments you could try to make a case that gays reproducing with each other reduces their value to the species, but in this culture, if you don't have a family you're forever alone. I guess we'll find out soon, either way.

And by "soon" I mean in another few hundred thousand years at the earliest. We'll all be in the cloud by then anyway though, so who cares.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[AlamedaStone]

If you want the ritual and then choose to proclaim that the ritual means something to you, then by all means, have at it. If you want to enter into a contract with someone, you should do so. The mixing of the two is what makes marriage such a mess.

Or, to paraphrase a great leader:

Kang: Civil unions for all.
                        [crowd boos]
                      Very well, no civil unions for anyone.
                        [crowd boos]
                      Hmm... Civil unions for some, miniature American flags for
                      others.
                        [crowd cheers and waves miniature flags]

Personally, I think "civil unions for all" is the most rational path. Marriage is between two people and their beliefs and values. A government body has no business "licensing" marriage.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[jace_d]

This argument of yours becomes very doubtful once you consider the mechanisms of genetics and evolution. Nature is not forgiving, i'm taking a guess here, but I believe that any evolution that has no apparent advantages towards the survival of an organism will eventually lead to the annihilation of that organism. I'm not going to pretend to know much about evolution, however,saying evolution relies on imperfections is, at best,an oversimplification. You may have been closer to truth had you said that homosexuality is an evolutionary mechanism to deal with overpopulatuon. Call me a homophobe, but it is blatantly apparent that homosexuality is a destructive aspect to the species, (Disclaimer: I'm not implying that if you are homosexual,that nature wants you out.) If anything,evolution may rely on removing those imperfections once they become apparent. And if those imperfections somehow work out,the orginators will/may be the ones to die out. Now is the time you should factor in the probability that random variations in a molecule as complex as dna will result in anything other than a cancer. I'll admit that my argument falls apart once you factor in human intelligence,which brings in a whole new paradigm of what survival entails.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[AlamedaStone]

I'm religious but I figure it's God's job to enforce his rules, not mine.

If he disapproves of cloning or babies from same-sex couples, then He'll strike them down. If not then I guess He approves. (shrug) Not my laws; not my job to enforce them on others.

I commend this attitude. I grew up in a deeply-devout christian sect. Eventually I came to the conclusion that it just doesn't matter what the answer to The Question of God really is. If you live the best you can, hurt others as infrequently as possible (and maybe help a little!), no "supreme being" is going to fuck you over for not bowing or clapping at the right time. It just isn't a relevant issue.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[mcgrew]

A very rational approach to it, but do you think the less rational religious types will concur?

Less rational people are, by definition, less rational, whether religious, agnostic, or athiest, and should be ignored.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[mcgrew]

Dr. House's statement you quoted is irrational. Arguing with an athiest about God's existence is like a 16th century man arguing with a man blind from birth about the existence of color.

Absense of proof is not proof of absense.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[Toze]

This assumes there is a Gay Gene, which is a scientifically unwarranted and philosophically unpleasant assumption of both genetics and determinism.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[Mystiq]

Homosexuality is not a choice. Please learn this. Animals in nature can also be homosexual and I consider that proof that nature approves of it.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[shadowrat]

Isn't the homosexuality trend self-fixing anyway? If 2 guys or 2 girls get together, and stay loyal for ever, they aint passing those genes on. It's kinda self-policing that way.

I didn't even have to RTFA to realize that it renders this statement untrue.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[vegiVamp]

> Also, a lot of religious people have objected to same-sex marriages on the grounds that they believe marriage should only be between people capable of having children together. This will resolve that road-block so they can be okay with same-sex marriage.

No, I suspect that the majority of those will quickly change their thinking to "naturally have children", and join the ranks of those crusading against stem cell research, abortion and whatnot.

The only reason that the word "natural" wasn't in there yet is that the two forms were equal until now.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[mcgrew]

Also, a lot of religious people have objected to same-sex marriages on the grounds that they believe marriage should only be between people capable of having children together.

A lot, perhaps, but still a minority. Religious people generally object to same-sex marriages because the Old Testament says homosexuality is a sin. Most forget, however, that everybody sins, and your sins are already paid for. They were paid for by a sinless man's torture and horrible death.

Most Christians I talk to are aghast at the prospect of Timothy McVeigh going to heaven.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[mwvdlee]

any evolution that has no apparent advantages towards the survival of an organism will eventually lead to the annihilation of that organism.

Only if that evolution has an apparent disadvantage. It's quite likely that evolutions are insignificant or neutral enough to simple not matter to survival of the species.

If half of a species is unable to procreate due to some genetic markup, it doesn't impact the species as a whole as long as the other half reproduces like bunnies. any genetic markup that results in a person being unable to procreate is negated by those that can and there simply isn't significant disadvantage to whatever causes that genetic difference.

This has been said a billion times, and apparently needs to be said a billion times more; natural selection doesn't select anything. It's whatever is still alive after some period of time has passed.

If nature selected for a biological ideal, we'd have a ratio of one male for every thousand females; you really don't need any more males from a purely biological standpoint. Sadly enough, I have to share my thousands females with about 999 other men.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[baKanale]

Also, a lot of religious people have objected to same-sex marriages on the grounds that they believe marriage should only be between people capable of having children together. This will resolve that road-block so they can be okay with same-sex marriage.

It's not just the ability-to-have-children thing. There's also a biblical justification:

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination." -Leviticus 18:22 KJV

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." -Leviticus 20:13 KJV

You're also forgetting that this is the same crowd that opposes the adoption of children by homosexual couples, partly on the grounds that the children will be indoctrinated into some sort of grand international homosexual conspiracy to destroy America, Freedom, and apple pie. Yes, this sort do believe that marriage and sex are intended by God purely for the purposes of producing children. But then why do they not also oppose marriage involving people who are infertile or sterile, only marriage between homosexuals?

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

Never mind the Bible Humpers, just think of how some feminists will react. If we develop artificial wombs and use this technology in humans, men won't need women in order to reproduce. Some feminists might rejoice, as it means that women will no longer have to go through pregnancy. Other feminists will get pissy, as this would mean that women can no longer decide which men get to have children.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[JeffSpudrinski]

Not arguing here (don't flame me if you disagree)...just providing a little clarification:

Quote: "Mary had Jesus by God which was a 1 Mother, 0 Father scenario (God is generally regarded as the spiritual father. I don't think many Christians envisage actual physical sex with God as evidenced by the virginity of Mary remaining intact)"

Some Christians would interpret this is 1 Father, 0 [genetic] Mother. Some interpretations have it that Mary was mainly the surrogate mother and Jesus was God incarnate. He used Mary's womb as His starting point...thereby completely experiencing what it was to be human from the start. Again...that kept Mary's viginity intact, however she was considered holy enough for this honor...which is why some tenets of Christianity (Catholicism) honor Mary greatly.

-JJS

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[Creedo]

Absense of proof is not proof of absense.

And yet religious people keep building stupendous edifices of fanciful, silly and downright terrible beliefs on that exact absence.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[IICV]

The way to understand the anti-abortion mindset is extremely simple, but very difficult (apparently) for many supposedly "rational" thinkers. They believe that a person is alive and has rights from the moment of conception. Potential life, in their eyes, is to be as revered as full life-- in fact in some ways more so because it has no adequate defenses or ability to survive without help*.

By what logic do they stop at the moment of conception? The thing that was just conceived is almost exactly as alive as the amoebas you killed washing your hands, and yet you do it anyway. The only thing abortion does is kill the potential of a human life. At what point does it stop? Why is conception the point at which it goes from being "not a potential human life" to "a potential human life"? After all, every second you spend not having procreative sex is a second in which you are preventing the birth of a potential human life. And should we start charging women who miscarry with negligence? It was a potential human life, and there are definitely steps a woman can take to reduce the risk of miscarriage; if the woman didn't take those steps, isn't she causing the death of a potential human just like an abortion doctor would have?

The main thing, though, is that I simply don't see the anti-abortion movement putting their money where their mouth is. Protesters are always in front of clinics saying "Don't get an abortion! Abortions are bad!" - but if they really cared about the potential baby's life, why aren't they saying "Don't get an abortion! We'll adopt the child!"?

Keep in mind also that we're talking about first trimester abortions here; the pro-choice movement is not saying "abortions for everyone whenever they want them!", they're saying "abortions for everyone as long as it's before the fetus has developed past a certain point".

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[dogmatixpsych]

Don't confuse stem cell research with embryonic stem cell research. There are a lot of people who support stem cell research, just not embryonic stem cell research.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[mrops]

Actually, in all likely hood it is not genetic, had it been, home-sexual would have disappeared from gene pool long long ago. I mean, these two mice are the first same sex parents in the history of time. So all those previous genetic influenced same sex folks would never have had offspring, effectively taking them off the gene pool.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[IICV]

In other words: as long as gay Uncle Tony is not a detriment to you raising your children, then he's partially genetically successful; after all, on average, you share half of his genes, and your children share 1/4th. Thus, for every successful child he helps you raise, he gets 1/4th of an "evolution win", much like for every child you successfully raise you get 1/2 of an "evolution win". If he doesn't prevent his siblings from raising four children, gay Uncle Tony has basically pulled his own genetic weight and on average his genes will be passed on even though he had no children of his own, and might not have even helped to raise any. The thing is, though, that despite the fact that I've phrased this in terms of not being a detriment, in practice gay Uncle Tony will be helpful (as long as you don't ostracize him, of course) - he'll provide babysitting, he'll share food, he'll help throw parties, he'll hunt mammoths, etcetera - thus meaning that families with a gay Uncle Tony are, on average, more successful than ones without one.

The thing is, this works even for people who are not directly related. If gay Uncle Tony adopts a child, on average that child will share some large fraction of his human-specific genes (I forget the exact number, but it was surprisingly large - something like 1/36th I think?). Even by raising an adoptive child, gay Uncle Tony's genes still get a relatively noticeable "evolution win".

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[VortexCortex]

Or am I mistaken here?

Nope. Not mistaken. Also: Stem cells can be created from your own skin. Stem cells have nothing to do with Abortion, move along.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[Hatta]

The way to understand the anti-abortion mindset is extremely simple, but very difficult (apparently) for many supposedly "rational" thinkers. They believe that a person is alive and has rights from the moment of conception.

The reason it's so different for rational thinkers to understand that is because it's an irrational position. It takes someone with very simplistic concepts of life to mistake a lump of totipotent cells for a child. It essentially comes down to a belief that something magical happens at conception.

the fact that the question is far more philosophical than scientific means that you can't simply disregard this option

The fact that it is more philosophical than scientific is exactly why we can disregard this option. It's superstition, nothing more, and should be treated as such.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[Hooya]

> Absense of proof is not proof of absense.

Precisely!

"Invisible Pink Unicorns are beings of great spiritual power. We know this because they are capable of being invisible and pink at the same time. Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them."

Just because there is absence of of proof doesn't mean that's proof of absence!

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[jammer170]

I am one of those that believes life starts at conception, but it isn't entirely arbitrary. I draw the line there because it is the point that life will grow with no further action. Separated, sperm or an egg will simply die off by itself. Once combined in a womb, it will grow into a person. As long as the woman simply continues living, the child will generally (barring complications) grow and be born. That is what makes that particular step special.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[alexborges]

I can say Ive been around very rational religious people, akin to what you post here. The problem, however, is that they are not the ones in charge, they arent leading anyone in the catholic church and are meek: they are NOT fighting against their church's stance cause, you know, they can loose their jobs that way.

So i just dont count them. If intelligent Catholics are not actively reforming their faith, they are worthless to it. Thank god, they are not worthless to me, or you, or people around them...

It is a sad thing that nobody remembers that the Latin word ecclesia (church), actually means congregation or assembly: it should be the reunion of the faithful what leads the church, not old men in weird dresses.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[alexborges]

Imaginary friends are not proof of a vast social life.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[marcello_dl]

> do you think the less rational religious types will concur?

it is a matter of being rational or not, then.

Religion aside, prejudices aside, having a child from 2 fathers is a technology achievement.If it becomes a widespread practice it's another step in the growing dependence on a system for things we were able to do on our own. Note that I have nothing against technology being used to assist reproduction. But I bet that misuse of this tech will happen just like it happened with all the other tech, and I fear that misuse will be the prevalent one.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[Hooya]

I get that. And that's respectable.

However, IRL, the people that I've run into that are "anti-abortion" are usually pro-war, have some detectable racism tinge, have no issues with issues like child exploitation (eg. google "baccha bazi DynCorp"). To me, that's hypocrisy. They have no respect for the lives already here that need protection because they are defenseless (civilian casualties, sexually exploited children, the list goes on..)

Yet they try to project some vague "respect for life" ethos. I wonder how much of that is a case of "every sperm is sacred" (Meaning of Life) mentality as opposed to truly valuing and respecting life.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[adonoman]

produce offspring from two mail donors

Which is the biggest breakthrough in a long time, and no body else seems to have realized this. The ability to conceive by mail rather than having to be there in person is incredible! This has nothing to do with whether the donors are male or female, and everything to do with their physical location.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[geekoid]

Historically, the Catholic church has been a proponent of science. Not that it's been perfect. Ironically it's getting worse because there followers are becoming infected with a more evangelical view of the world.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[geekoid]

You are not mistaken. They use material that would of been discarded anyways.

If someone believes stem cell research in 'wrong', then they must also believe IVF is 'wrong'. Nothing stops the stem cell research 'debate' faster then pointing uot to a religious middle aged women wanting IVF that it's no different the stem cell research.

In my experience the womans view changes pretty damn quickly. Granted my experience is 'twice'.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[geekoid]

Why the assumption it's wrong?

Every mammal group has a population of homosexual behavior. It's natural.

Also, you have a sever lack of understanding on how genetics work. You might want to study a little more before making the assumption on how genetic traits are passed.

Also, your grasp of evolution is pretty weak.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[werepants]

The main thing, though, is that I simply don't see the anti-abortion movement putting their money where their mouth is. Protesters are always in front of clinics saying "Don't get an abortion! Abortions are bad!" - but if they really cared about the potential baby's life, why aren't they saying "Don't get an abortion! We'll adopt the child!"?

5 minutes of googling returned this website - http://www.angeladoptioninc.com/ - a pro-life organization providing adoption assistance. I don't necessarily agree with pro-lifers, but it isn't honest to characterize them as unfeeling or claim that they don't actually want to prevent abortions. Most of them care very deeply about this issue, and if there is any failing on their parts it is a lack of a complete understanding of the biology of human birth. For a pro-lifer to be internally consistent, I believe they have to reject almost every form of birth control outside of condoms, because pills and the rhythm method both work by causing fertilized fetuses not to implant, so technically result in fetal abortion.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[naubol]

There are a number of people of prominence throughout history where there is some evidence to suggest they were in fact homosexual. Granted, its assumptive, but I think a moment's reflection says it is not at all irrational to think that these people hid their sexuality in order to be successful.

Isaac Newton is just one of those individuals with whom we can say the possibility that he was homosexual is increased. I think this statement so offends some because they view it with stigma. If you are truly ambivalent as to the morality of sexuality, it is also assumptive to say he was heterosexual. The evidence of his marriage to a woman is not decisive, there are sufficient numbers of modern homosexuals in heterosexual marriages because of social pressure and many more that left them because of a perceived relaxation in social pressure. It is rather bold for the other poster to claim him to be gay, but there is evidence to support the claim.

Would we even know Alan Turing was a homosexual if he wasn't caught by the policeman? I'm not sufficiently caught up in the details of his life to know. I think there is a great desire on the part of homosexuals to claim some luminaries in their camp because it shows homosexuals can be pillars of society. Certainly some of these historical people with evidence are in fact closeted by the laws of probability alone.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[lessthan]

it is blatantly apparent that homosexuality is a destructive aspect to the species

exactly how is it apparent?

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[Grond]

(It should be noted that this is in no way a new idea, and has existed even in ancient cultures where the murder or beating of a pregnant woman would be dealt with more severely than with one who was not-pregnant. In "ye olden days" when having a baby was even more dangerous than it is today, and the infant death rate was extremely high, the idea of "potential life" was very important to early peoples.)

Completely false. The Old Testament makes it clear that injuring a pregnant woman and causing a miscarriage is treated as a relatively minor property crime and not at all like murder (Exodus 21:22). Historically (and today) Jews believed that life began after birth when the child emerged from the mother and took its first breath (source). Furthermore, abortion was practiced the ancient Greeks and Romans, who had no problem with it (and yet Christ couldn't be bothered to say anything about it). Even medieval Christians didn't believe life began until the fetus moved in the womb ('the quickening').

Anthropologists will tell you that, in general, the higher the infant death rate, the laxer the view of the moral status of fetuses and infant children. In some cultures a child isn't a person until it's about two years old; it isn't even given a name. This is essentially a psychological and economic coping mechanism. In the developed world we have the 'luxury' of caring about every unique little snowflake.

The view of fetal life as inherently valuable is very much a modern one. For example, when Roe v. Wade first legalized abortion in the US, most evangelicals said nothing and many actually applauded it. Even before the ruling the Southern Baptist Convention officially resolved that "we call upon Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother." Those criteria are pretty broad, and it's a call for active lobbying for such legislation.

Modern anti-choice views are a product of about 40 years of political polarization caused by conservatives using it as a wedge issue.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[Opportunist]

You might be surprised, but the Catholics are rather "tame" when it comes to the whole religion vs. science clash. The general creed seems to be "the Bible tells you how to get into heaven. Not how heaven works". Recently Galileo was acquitted and his excommunication was reverted. And I tried hard to find any New-Earth Catholics, but didn't find any. If you have an opportunity to have a conversation and discussion with a priest that actually studied Theology (just so you know, priests here pretty much HAVE to if they wanna be considered for office, our church doesn't want to embarrass itself with self proclaimed laymen who have no idea what they're talking about), don't miss it. Theology isn't just reading the Bible back to back until you can recite it by heart. These guys usually also have a pretty strong background in philosophy, sociology and psychology. Talking with them can actually be a revelation. Not so much in a religious way (sorry, no way to convince me your imaginary friend on his fluffy cloud rolls the dice here), but they can really make you think.

I had a discussion with a rom-cath priest a while ago about new earth and creationism and all that, and asked for his opinion on the "struggle" between theology and science he said something along the lines of "I have none. My faith tells me God created heavens and earth and all in six days. Science says it ain't so? So what? Should science sway my faith? How strong can a person's faith be if it depends on petty things like this?"

At first I was bemused, how detached from reality does a man have to be to ignore reality and facts and cling to his faith, no matter how "wrong"... then it hit me that he was absolutely right. After all, that is what faith is about: believing. He simply believed in his God. He needed no proof, he didn't test him. He believed in him. Pretty much what that God wants from him, if you read the bible.

How strong can the faith of those be that require "proof" that the bible is right?

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[Omestes]

Historically, the Catholic church has been a proponent of science.

Sans epidemiology.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[kheldan]

That was the very first thought that I had when I read this.
***Bracing for renewed anti-science and anti-gay religious shitstorm in 3.. 2.. 1..***

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[Omestes]

Simply put, any act that ends the life of another (in this case even an abortion) must be justified-- and for many people there is even more simply no justification for the taking of another life.

I would understand this if all anti-abortion people were also vehemently anti-war and anti-death penalty. From my experience (anecdotal, so mostly useless), it is mostly the opposite that is the case.

I am mostly against abortion, but not firm enough in this that I would ever try to force that viewpoint on another person. If I was female, I probably wouldn't get one. But there is a point where things get absurd. A bunch of rapidly developing cells is not human, or at least they are as human as a cancer cluster. Yes, they MAY turn into a human at some point in time, but they are definitely not human.

The bigger problem is that they are willing to dictate my behavior based on a belief system I do not share, and thus has no grounding. There is no potential for this grounding since this system is based on metaphysical claims that can never be empirically proven. If they say an embryo is sacred, their point is as valid as me saying it is nothing more than a mass of cells and thus not worthy of special rights*. There is no way to break this stand-off. There never will be a way. But yet they force their opinion on others.

The worst thing is, all the anti-abortion efforts could be better spent on taking care of children born to unfit or overly poor families, and taking care of the children born with various defects. I feel the same about the big anti-birthcontrol catholic crusade, all that effort would be better spend on STD research and care, and caring for children born into truly terrible conditions.

*The longest standing philosophical debate in existence (arguably) goes like this: "God exists!" "No he doesn't!". And so it has stood for thousands of years, neither claim is provable, and thus resolution is impossible.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[LocalH]

Recently Galileo was acquitted and his excommunication was reverted.

Wow, I'm sure he'll be enthused to know that!

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[Sprouticus]

While no direct 'gay gene has been found, there have been studies which have shown a biological element to be gay. Nothing is conclusive of course, but it is at least worth consideration.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[__aanhjr1420]

(Alan Turing, Isaac Newton, Plato, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Alan Turing, Francis Bacon, Henry David Thoreau...)

Hedley: "You said Alan Turing twice."

Applicant: "I like Alan Turing."

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[h4rm0ny]

Um, that one isn’t from the Bible.

I get them all confused. Probably thinking of Lot's wife which was a similar woman-transformation thing. Maybe it's in both, like with Odin and Jesus both being nailed to a tree for three days before coming back to life. If Jesus didn't have one-eye, I'd never be able to remember which was which.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[clone52431]

Yes, making cutesy jokes about how little effort you deliberately make to know as little about the Bible as possible makes you extraordinarily qualified to criticize it.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[rtyhurst]

My partner Cyril and I are very excited by this and are jacking off like blazes to provide material for our offspring...

We plan to fill a bucket and then sink it in liquid nitrogen to preserve it.

We've already picked out a name ("Caligula") and are knitting baby booties in myriad rainbow colors...

Oh, bliss!

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[paeanblack]

The best description of hell I ever heard was also from a Vatican worker.

Paraphrasing a bit:

> ''Hell, by definition, is just a place where God does not exist. To a Christian, that is the worst place imaginable. We speak of fire and brimstone and eternal physical torture, but that's only the best analogy we have to describe it. It's just a place without the presence of God. People have their entire life to form a relationship with God; if they don't, they go to Hell. When I say, "you are going to Hell", it means you will be without God forever because once you are dead, you can't change anything. As a non-Christian, this is meaningless to you, but thinking about it makes me sad.''

The discussion continued to whether he believed all this stuff was real. Again, paraphrasing...

> ''What is real? Pain, love, remorse, joy, anger...all of these are things we can identify and predict, but not explain. They are all in your head; they have no physical manifestation to inspect. We could argue that they aren't "real", but they certainly exist. "Real" is semantics. God, and by extension, Hell, both exist. That doesn't mean I can convince you they are real.''

Frankly, it was a pretty interesting discussion.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[kingramon0]

the fact that the question is far more philosophical than scientific means that you can't simply disregard this option

The fact that it is more philosophical than scientific is exactly why we can disregard this option. It's superstition, nothing more, and should be treated as such.

I think you missed the point.

Your belief that life does not start at the moment of conception is also a matter of philosophy. Why is your philosophy more valid than that of the pro-lifers? If you can say that their philosophy can be easily disregarded, then so can yours.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[Effexor]

If homosexually is genetic then by that same merit its also a biological imperfection and should be fixed (just as pedophilia and bestiality).

Hmm.

If being straight is genetic then by that same merit its also a biological imperfection and should be fixed (just as pedophilia and bestiality).

If being white is genetic then by that same merit its also a biological imperfection and should be fixed (just as pedophilia and bestiality).

I suspect your logical argument may have skipped an important step.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[sexconker]

The problem most rational people have with this is that picking the moment of conception as the beginning of life is completely arbitrary

If where you draw that line makes no difference, why not draw the line even earlier? Why decide that 'life' starts when sperm and egg come together, and instead take the Every Sperm is Sacredmantra? A sperm cell and an egg cell on their own aren't all that different from the two cells together. People picked that point because it's an easily identifiable step in the process of procreation, but that doesn't make it particularly special.

I'd say this is a troll, but I know there are morons out there who would actually believe this shit.

"picking the moment of conception as the beginning of life is completely arbitrary"

As is picking the moment of birth.
As is picking the moment the fetus is viable - our medical technology increases all the time and the moment of viability could one day be the moment of conception.

"A sperm cell and an egg cell on their own aren't all that different from the two cells together."

Actually, they're vastly and fundamentally different.

The point of conception IS particularly special, because it's the point where actual human DNA is formed, instead of two disparate half sets that can't ever do anything. Said DNA proceeds to replicate and do it's thing, making all other points simply an application of the Grow() function.

The point of conception is indeed unique from all other points in life. Whether or not you feel it's wrong to kill a person ever, while they're a child, while they're unborn, while they're unborn and don't pose a risk to the mother's life, while they're unborn and don't pose a risk to the parents' life (financially, emotionally), while they're unborn and show defects, while they're unborn and don't look like a person, etc. if up to you and completely arbitrary. And when things are arbitrary, you're just going to have to fucking deal with people having different opinions than you. Spouting arbitrary bullshit and claiming you're being "rational" and other are stupid makes you the irrational, stupid fuck.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[Creedo]

Yes, making cutesy jokes about how little effort you deliberately make to know as little about the Bible as possible makes you extraordinarily qualified to criticize it.

I personally know more about the Bible, the history of the Bible and the history of Christianity than most Christians I talk to. The fact that I know it so well is part of why I despise it. Anyone who thinks the stories in the bible are unique are amazingly ignorant of all the other writings of those times. I imagine that the grandparent knows plenty about the Bible, and is deliberately mocking adults who still believe in mythological fairy tales.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[kalirion]

Dr. House's statement you quoted is irrational. Arguing with an athiest about [God|Santa Claus|Homosexual Agenda|Flying Spaghetti Monster]'s existence is like a 16th century man arguing with a man blind from birth about the existence of color.

Absense of proof is not proof of absense.

FTFY

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[clone52431]

I imagine that the grandparent knows plenty about the Bible, and is deliberately mocking adults who still believe in mythological fairy tales.

I imagine so too, which was why I pointed out the error.

If you’re making fun of people just to be an ass, at least don’t screw up. You end up looking stupider than the people you’re trying to make look stupid, in addition to looking like an ass.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[fyngyrz]

Isaac Newton was not a homosexual.

Actually, it kind of looks like he was. Why... would it be terrible for you if he was? You think the apple would have fallen up instead of down?

And you mentioned Turing twice.

Yeah, and I wrote "spit" where I meant to write "split." Sometimes I edit poorly. It's not that I'm extra fond of Turing; I *am*, however, extra fond of Bacon. :)

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[fyngyrz]

Whether gays should be allowed to marry in my opinion should be based on whether or the public wants it.

Yes? And this also applies to enslaving blacks, and women? Democracy is a foul way to protect (or assure the equal rights of) the people who most need it, you know... this isn't news.

Sorry, I just don't find your position convincing.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[fyngyrz]

No, actually, I think I'll just carry on as usual. Thanks for your input, though. Cheers. :)

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[DigiShaman]

Here's my rational observation of the matter. The main difference between (American) conservatives and liberals is in who gets protection and who does not.

For the record, I'm an American Conservative. However, I actually understand the liberal point of view. It simply depends on the angle win which you view living, life, and justice from a philosophical standpoint.

Conservatives are pro war and death penalty, but anti-abortion and anti-birth control. Liberals are the opposite. That is to say, Conservatives believe a fetus/baby is the embodiment on innocents while the convicted murder has already committed sin. Liberals believe that a fetus/baby is not capable to appreciate living either way, and that a convicted murder still has a chance to atone for their wrong doings.

So, in short: Conservatives believe in justice in the eyes of God. Liberals believe in corporeal awareness, and everything is judged from that POV.

So who's correct? Well, I guess that depends on where you stand.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[DamnStupidElf]

Unless, of course, the embryo doesn't implant for any number of reasons. Making sex reckless endangerment at best and downright murder in many cases.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[DamienRBlack]

3 minutes on their website shows that they have helped 98 babies get adopted in the last 3 years. There are 1.5 million abortions per year in the united states alone, so you only have to google 45,000 more sites like that and problem solved (in the US).

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAG (I Am Not A Geneticist), but - this is oversimplifying genetics & natural selection to the point of favoring incorrect conclusions.

First, you appear to be assuming that homosexuality is dominant (and has a single genetic cause). In other words, you're implying a child must have at least one homosexual parent to be homosexual. This is empirically untrue. Heterosexual parents have homosexual children (and vice versa) all the time, which blows your suggestion out of the water.

Second, natural selection/the survival of the species is not always linked to the same traits as survival/reproduction of an individual. Look up kin selection, for instance. And no, I'm not implying that humans are insects; I'm simply illustrating that genetics isn't as simple as "X helps me successfully reproduce = X survives in the gene pool."

Last, I have to take offense at your characterization of homosexuality as a genetic defect. Being homosexual causes the individual no objective harm. What can be harmful is society's reaction, depending on the society. Relabeling a trait as a defect based only on societal disapproval is a really nasty path.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[domatic]

It is probably more likely the case there are sets of genes that can predispose one to homosexuality to greater or lesser degree. Not all traits can be neatly handled by introductory Mendelian genetics.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[mcgrew]

Isn't the homosexuality trend self-fixing anyway?

If it were, it would have fixed itself long ago.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[adisakp]

The way to understand the anti-abortion mindset is extremely simple, but very difficult (apparently) for many supposedly "rational" thinkers. They believe that a person is alive and has rights from the moment of conception. Potential life, in their eyes, is to be as revered as full life-- in fact in some ways more so because it has no adequate defenses or ability to survive without help*.

One thing to note for the grandparent is that even to discard fertilized eggs from IVF is just as bad as abortion. The Catholic Church is against IVF and artificial fertility methods that discard fertilized embryos because they destroy a life. The actual church doctrine says it's better for a couple to be barren and without children than to use methods that may destroy embryos. It's important to know that IVF fertility treatment is just as bad a sin as abortion if any of the eggs not implanted and subsequently are discarded.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[Creedo]

If you’re making fun of people just to be an ass, at least don’t screw up. You end up looking stupider than the people you’re trying to make look stupid, in addition to looking like an ass.

Did he screw up? Or is he deliberately trivializing the stories to highlight his disdain? It's a common, and often times hilarious, approach to demonstrating the absurdity of such subjects.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[clone52431]

is he deliberately trivializing the stories to highlight his disdain?

The rest of his post seemed pretty straight-forward and not particularly disdainful.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[cbhacking]

You are correct, but that doesn't mean the nutjobs know this (or would believe it if told). On the other hand, my uncle actually performs IVF. The process inevitably produces many fertilized cells that aren't used, because the expense of the operation means multiple ova are harvested at once to ensure there will be at least one success.

What is done with the ones that aren't implanted? Well, they could be used for medical science that could have an incredible effect on health and treatments of currently incurable conditons. Instead, they're generally quite literally discarded. Thrown away. Wasted. How on Earth that is seen as more moral than using them to try and save or improve lives, I really can't say.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[kingramon0]

We were talking about when life begins, not when "personhood" begins. What "makes a person a person" is also a philosophical subject.

And we still have not gotten away from philosophy. If it is your view that a baby is not worthy of protection before it develops a central nervous system and becomes a person, that is still your philosophy.

You are deciding that there is some scientific criteria that must be met before you consider something a human being - that is your philosophy. Whether or not it is based on science is irrelevant.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[Creedo]

Historically, the Catholic church has been a proponent of science. Not that it's been perfect. Ironically it's getting worse because there followers are becoming infected with a more evangelical view of the world.

It's been a proponent ONLY when the science in question was not perceived to contradict church doctrine. It creates a weird hodgepodge of science and myth which is evident in the Catechism, documents such as papal encyclicals, the defense of relics like the Shroud of Turin and the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe and the various claims of miracles. Look at the typical canonization process to see science and statistics completely ignored in favor of the saintly narrative.

The Catholic church might not be as bad as the Evangelicals when it comes to public attacks on science, but make no mistake, it is not an ally, either.

Science and technology by their very nature require unconditional respect for fundamental moral criteria. They must be at the service of the human person, of his inalienable rights, of his true and integral good, in conformity with the plan and the will of God.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2294 (emphasis mine)

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[Creedo]

The rest of his post seemed pretty straight-forward and not particularly disdainful.

Look here. This works as well for Christian canon as it does for Star Trek canon, and for exactly the same reasons.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[mcgrew]

saying evolution relies on imperfections is, at best,an oversimplification

Well, in a small slashdot comment you're going to have oversimplification, but in fact that's pretty much how it works.

Say you have a species that's evolved to live in frigid climates. If one of the animals is born without enough fur, that's an imperfection, and it dies. But if the climate changes (say, the ice age ends or something), that imperfection is no longer an imperfection -- the animal with all the fur is less likely to survive, so the heavy fur itself becomes an imperfection.

Evolution doesn't often happen unless living situations change -- different predators, changing food sources, changing climate, etc.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[gatzby3jr]

That may be true for your encounters, but that doesn't discredit the anti-abortion argument.

We can't just say "you believe in x so the fact that you believe y makes it all bullshit".

As the GP was saying, this is a philosophical issue: when does life begin. It's their belief.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[Golddess]

That's just proof God hates bisexuals, not homosexuals :P

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[Hatta]

We were talking about when life begins, not when "personhood" begins.

Clearly personhood is what matters. If it was just life that mattered, a zygote would be no different than any other lump of human tissue. Every one of your cells is alive, so every time you scratch an itch you're ending thousands of human lives. I've never heard anyone suggest that scratching is murder, so there must be something else at issue here.

You are deciding that there is some scientific criteria that must be met before you consider something a human being - that is your philosophy.

For the sake of argument, rationality and superstition are both philosophies. Are you suggesting that they are on equal ground?

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[The Wild Norseman]

in practice gay Uncle Tony will be helpful (as long as you don't ostracize him, of course) - he'll provide babysitting, he'll share food, he'll help throw parties, he'll hunt mammoths, etcetera -

Mammoths? I thought the accepted term these days was "beefcake"?

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[Crag]

"... they often provide a different and useful set of sensibilities to the community (Alan Turing, ..."

It's true that many great people have also been homosexual, but I don't think their greatness has ever been because of their sexual preferences. The only sphere within which sexual preference could be argued have any relationship to social contribution is in art.

Your point about homosexuality not actually beign a problem is much better than implying that 'fixing' the problem would deprive us of 10% of our geniuses.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[im_thatoneguy]

Cloning poses a problem as well. If we could have a child from every cell nucleus then every skin cell we shed is a lost potential life as well.

Most "life at conception"ers also ignore artificial insemination which results in dozens of fertilized eggs in the process.

Lastly the best case against Pro-Life viewpoints is that it means that most pro-lifers are terrible human beings. If it's a human life. And it's being murdered, then they're complacent. If you lived near a concentration camp that was unguarded wouldn't it be your duty to kill the Nazis? How many pro-life activists have even bothered picketing in the last 12 months? In their world view abortion is murder--and their reaction to mass murder all across the country is... to make a negative Facebook post.

I would hope that if people really thought Abortion == Murder they would be more proactive in their civil disobedience. Until they are regularly chaining themselves to abortion clinic doors in protest at least once a month I don't believe them when they tell me that abortion is an equivalent. Their actions prove that they view a fetus as a unique condition in which normal morality does not apply.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[John Hasler]

Once you've had a credible religious experience, it's impossible to NOT believe in God. Once you've seen an elephant, it's impossible to NOT believe in elephants, and arguing elephants' existance is a lost cause.

Wrong. Having seen an elephant I am almost completely certain that they exist but I do not find it inconceivable that you could produce evidence that would convince me that I was fooled. That illustrates the fundamental difference between a religious and a scientific world view.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[Opportunist]

Of course it doesn't really help him anymore, a few centuries after his death. But you have to see it from the perspective of the church, and what that actually means to them.

It is not easy for the Roman Catholic Church to admit that they erred. There's still that dogma about the Pope being infallible, and it took them a while to tapdance around that. IIRC the solution was that the inquisition made the mistake and not the Pope, and the inquisition may err.

Yes, it looks ridiculous to us that this is some issue, especially since Galileo has been dead for centuries by now, who cares about him being acquitted? For the church, the soul is eternal and hence it does matter a lot. Also, this has high symbolic meaning, since it symbolizes their attempt to lose their luddite image, they actually "bowed down" to science.

It's hard to explain just how much this gesture means to someone not familiar with the inner workings of the rom cat church. Essentially, the Pope said "sorry". And Popes rarely do that.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[Opportunist]

I'm simply an economist. An adult has had some education and can thus be productive. A baby cannot for many years but needs a lot of input before it can contribute anything meaningful to the GDP.

The value of a human being is what it can produce. Or so I heard from the neocons. Funny that those are the same guys that are pro-war, pro-death penalty and anti-abortion. Kinda makes you wonder how consistent these guys are.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[Opportunist]

Why is it important when "life" begins? Since when is life something special? We send people to war and don't give a fuck about their life. And they don't give too much of an afterthought of the life of the people who live where we send them either. Not to mention all the places where we don't bother to go because it's too dangerous 'cause the life of a person is worth less than a drop of water.

Life ain't sacred.

Sure, I enjoy living. I guess so do you. I'm also pretty sure that this fetus wanted to live, or at least that it would have liked to. But given the choice between the life of the fetus and yours, because its stem cells can save your life, who gets to die? Hmm?

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[TangoMargarine]

Every one of your cells is alive, so every time you scratch an itch you're ending thousands of human lives.

I see the difference is that if you didn't scratch the itch, the skin cells would never naturally develop into a new human being.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[Jedi Alec]

And on the 6th day, God invented the vagina, and he saw that it was good and that he wanted some of that. And 6000 years later, we're all still claiming that on day 7 we "rest".

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[TangoMargarine]

Isaac Newton was not a homosexual.

Actually, it kind of looks like he was. Why... would it be terrible for you if he was? You think the apple would have fallen up instead of down?

This is Slashdot: we reserve the right to be pedantic and completely miss the point.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[TangoMargarine]

Well, I guess it'll just even out with that article where they made sperm out of bone marrow.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[DigiShaman]

So you must also support Government/Public health care and the "death panels" that go along with calculating one's ROI. How nice of you. Last I checked, conservatives were staunchly against that.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[garompeta]

Precisely, in the same way that celibacy isn't hereditary...

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[Creedo]

If you are a credible witness and testify that you've experienced the FSM, it would only be reasonable for me to consider the liklihood of its existance.

Not in a world where self-delusions, lying and hallucinations exist.

Once you've had a credible religious experience, it's impossible to NOT believe in God. Once you've seen an elephant, it's impossible to NOT believe in elephants, and arguing elephants' existance is a lost cause.

And those who are afflicted with various mental problems which generate realistic hallucinations are likewise convinced. That doesn't mean that their delusions are real, and it would be foolish to take their word without empirical evidence.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[garompeta]

I buy that argument. I've been always believing that homosexuality is nature's hand of controlling birth rate. Other animals do have such mechanisms, I don't think it is really that far fetched to consider that humans have analogous signaling (environmental, pheromonal, hormonal, etc...)
It may feel "anti-natural" because in fact it is going against its reproductive function which is essential for immediate survival of the genes of the subject/animal, but also ironically it could be part of Nature's mechanism to protect the "big picture": the long term survival of the species. Overpopulation means diminished resources for everyone or total depredation of resources which would lead to the extinction of the species. Economy has a direct impact on people and this in turn could trigger innumerable hormonal/pheromonal responses that we haven't discovered yet, also there is still a lot to explore in epigenetics. For example, we know the phenomena of the synchronized periods (McClintock effect), but we still don't know the inherent mechanisms that triggers it and this phenomena is used as a supportive evidence of the existence of pheronomes in humans. Another research seemed to show some evidence of pheromones (or another "invisible" and unknown way of signaling) by researching estrus in humans (this is a fun research to read, researchers went to strip clubs to measure how many tips the dancers received when they were in the fertile period compared to their infertile periods) Surprisingly men seemed to "detect" and find more attractive women in their fertile period, resulting in more requests and tips to those women. Could something analogous be happening with homosexuality? I remember reading somewhere that a cage overpopulated with rats incited homosexual behavior (if anyone could find the research or the supporting evidence of this idea I would really appreciate it)

BUT a conflicting evidence to that idea is that the poorest countries are the ones with the highest birth rate, and the wealthiest countries are the ones with less births. This leads to my definite thesis: reproduction is a survival strategy but if there is no hazard, no threat, and they are in a relatively benign environment it would tend to disincentivize reproduction because there is no need to "survive".

I've been struggling with these two ideas that might seem to be contradictory because the first one suggests that low resources/overpopulation might disincentivize reproduction to avoid overpopulation and its danger of depleting all the resources, while the second one suggests that the opposite too much wealth disincentivize reproduction because of lack of immediate threats that would require reproduction as a survival strategy.

I collected the data of the UN's Human Development Index+World Birth Rates and very clear inverse correlation seems to happen globally: The poorer, the higher the birth rate; which makes sense, reproduction is a way of cheating death. The richer, the lower the birth rate. I wondered if the richer countries would have more homosexuals than poor countries (I have no data and for obvious reasons finding homosexual demographics is really hard). But then I wondered, what if both hypothesis were right? In wealthy countries/benign environments, homosexuality/lack of births would be "induced" (somehow by nature) protecting the comfortable status quo and also due to the lack of the need of the "survival mode". And in poor countries/hostile environments, the survival mode activates reproduction but the hostile environment itself contributes to the death of a portion of the population, and if the population started to threaten the availability of resources it would occasionally trigger "homosexuality" to control the birth rates.

So that is what I've been reasoning, what I currently believe to be reasonable, and I wish to research it deeply eventually. If anyone could provide me with data or if someone thinks I am reinventing the wheel, I would really appreciate any research, theory or data regarding to it. D.K.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[Alsee]

Arguing with an athiest about God's existence is like a 16th century man arguing with a man blind from birth about the existence of color.

No. Your example is a perfect illustration of power of reason, as well as rational objective reality. Assuming rational blind people and rational color-seeing people, they can and would very quickly come to agreement on the objective truth. To illustrate a simple example, the blind people could agree on some objects such as squares of paper or pingpong balls that are identical, identical except that some people assert they see different colors in them. The blind people can secretly number the objects and log what colors they supposedly are. They could then present them to the color-people one at a time in random order asking what color they are. If colors exist then the color-seeing people will name the correct color with essentially 100% accuracy. Even more significantly different color-seeing people will independently report the same colors for objects with essentially 100% accuracy, given reasonable allowances for color-synonyms and shades and some overlap for adjacent colors, factors which can be reliably confirmed with appropriate tests.

As the House quote goes "Rational arguments don’t usually work on religious people. Otherwise, there wouldn’t be religious people."

Absense of proof is not proof of absense.

Ghosts goblins and gods.
Zeus exists because there is an absence of evidence he doesn't exist? You consider that rational?

Actually in most cases absence of evidence IS INDEED powerful evidence of absence. For example if I open my mailbox and look inside and have an absence of seeing mail, that is for all practical purposes absolute proof that I don't have any mail in my mailbox. If one preforms a thorough search for evidence that should exist for a certain think, and that evidence is absent, then that is indeed powerful evidence of absence.

Almost all definitions of "God" do indeed entail some objective evidence that should exist, and when a proper search for that evidence is undertaken and that evidence is found to be absent, that is indeed evidence of absence of that God. For example according to many people prayer is supposed to actually work, at least sometimes. All searches and all tests show that prayer has zero effect. For example praying for the health and recovery of heart patients has zero effect on their outcome. To the extent anyone defines God as sometimes answering prayers, this is indeed evidence of absence. And to the extent there could be a God-who-doesn't-answer-prayers it still establishes prayer as pointless.

I mentioned that most definitions of God do entail some objective testable evidence that should exist. In order to escape the absence of evidence = evidence of absence issue you are forced to define God into a very small very cramped very ineffectual box. If you define God as inherently lacking any existence that he ever existed at all, define God as inherently lacking any evidence of ever doing anything at all, you are defining God into meaninglessness. You are defining a God who makes no difference. You are defining a God who in effect does not exist.

In your other post you mention credible religious experiences. I do not dispute the existence of anyone's religious experiences. I have experienced a number of very unusual things myself, none of which had any basis in external reality. People experience all sorts of unusual things for all sorts of perfectly ordinary non-supernatural reasons. However you said credible religious experiences, which are rather lacking. Just look back to your example about color and blind men. It perfectly illustrates how credible experiences are objectively confirmable experiences. By claiming "credible experiences" that fail all objective confirmation you are in fact basing your argument on NON-credible experiences. We know that the brain, the mind, can have strange and vivid subjective experiences for countless perfectly ordinary reasons. For rational people that's no problem because they generally have no problem distinguishing internal abnormal subjective experiences from external objective confirmable reality.

-

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[ikeman32]

This isn't going to go down well with the God Squad.

They will get over it some day. And if they don't who cares? There is a reason for the separation of church and state in the constitution. Sometimes I wish there was a separation of church and science.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[eyendall]

AC wrote"
"The way to understand the anti-abortion mindset is extremely simple, but very difficult (apparently) for many supposedly "rational" thinkers. They believe that a person is alive and has rights from the moment of conception. Potential life, in their eyes, is to be as revered as full life-- in fact in some ways more so because it has no adequate defenses or ability to survive without help*."

Yet these same people who "revere life" are overwhelmingly in favour of the death penalty; and are quite happy with selective assassinations and war with its "collateral damage" (read killing and wounding of civilians by American soldiers), as long as it is America doing the killing. Not to speak of the millions of Americans in the US who can't afford or get access to decent health care.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[mcgrew]

Zeus exists because there is an absence of evidence he doesn't exist? You consider that rational?

No, that's not what I said. Absense of evidence of nonexistence is not evidence of existence. If there is no evidence one way or the other, then the possibility of both existance and nonexistance exists. However, IMO Zeus most probably does exist (if you consider time to be a dimention; he doesn't exist in THIS time). Since he is "the father of the gods and thunder", he's most likely the first truly sentient human, possibly the first to harness fire; he and prometheus could possibly be the same.

That makes more sense to me than the possibility that somebody just made him up.

Likewise, Thor was probably the first man to hit someone in the head with a club. Zeus was probably his dad.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[spike hay]

There is actually some research showing that female relatives of male gays tend to have more children. It's also been shown that the chances of becoming gay increase with the number of older brothers. Becoming gay may have a genetic component but it looks to me like it has more to do with conditions in the womb. There is a "gay uncle" hypothesis that there is an advantage to having non-procreating males when there are a lot of kids running around.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[MightyYar]

This meshes with research I've seen where they've found a correlation between finger length and female homosexuality. A separate study found a correlation between womb testosterone levels and finger length... hmmmm... :)

And now there's this study showing a correlation between finger length and prostate cancer risk... so, yeah, womb conditions are certainly important.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[jonaskoelker]

virginity of Mary remaining intact [after sex with God]

I think there's a translation error creeping in here; the word originally used that gets translated into "virgin" (one who hasn't had sex) can also mean "young, unmarried woman" (`bachelorette', no?).

A young unmarried woman bearing children and remaining a young, unmarried woman doesn't surprise me.

Except if god has a +5 Dick of Aging.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[h4rm0ny]

That's interesting. Says a lot about a society where the word for unmarried is the same as the word for virgin. Glad you posted this actually, as I didn't know it. Suspect the dick in question is more of a Rod of Lordly Might, however.

Is YY possible?

[tonk]

What happens in case they combine two Y chromosomes?

Re:Is YY possible?

[Anonymous Coward]

colorblindness

and just about any other disorder that is linked to defective genes on the X chromosome

Re:Is YY possible?

[sjwt]

75% of a person!

the Y is a Y because its an X missing a bit, and when creating a person the missing it on the Y just defaults to the bit on the X

Re:Is YY possible?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's quite a few necessary proteins that are coded in the 'missing' portion of the Y gene. A YY embryo wouldn't have those at all, and would probably not be viable.

Re:Is YY possible?

[HBoar]

"We can rebuild them -- We have the technology" ---????

Re:Is YY possible?

[Troll-Under-D'Bridge]

You're joking of course. But seriously everyone (humans in any case) needs at least one X chromosome. No Y means you're female. More than two sex chromosomes (X or Y) will result in varying degrees of physical femininity or masculinity. A man with two X chromosomes (XXY) will look more female than a man with two Y chromosomes (XYY).

Re:Is YY possible?

[HBoar]

Well, someone has to back those trailers....

Re:Is YY possible?

[gringer]

No Y means you're female.

Also, deficiencies in the SRY region, or particular disruptions to the process that determines physical sex. People exist who were phenotypically female at birth, and only discovered their "maleness" at puberty when their testes descended and they grew unexpected amounts of facial hair.

Re:Is YY possible?

[elsurexiste]

75% of a person!

the Y is a Y because its an X missing a bit, and when creating a person the missing it on the Y just defaults to the bit on the X

Perhaps "bit" is an understatement: the Y have roughly 80 genes, while the X has around 2000; the Y is about 4 times smaller than the X.

Re:Is YY possible?

[ralfmuschall]

Then blood type would be essentially haploid, i.e. we'd have just genotypes A, B, 0 instead of the observed AA, A0, 00, AB, BB, B0 (where A0/AA and B0/BB are phenotypically the same). AFAIK the blood type is autosomal on chromosome 16.

Re:Is YY possible?

[mcgrew]

Two Y chromosomes won't work at all, as Troll-Under-D'Bridge says above.

However, you can have XYY.

Most often, the extra Y chromosome causes no unusual physical features or medical problems. Since XYY is not characterized by distinct physical features, the condition is usually detected only during genetic analysis for another reason.

47,XYY boys have an increased growth velocity during earliest childhood, with an average final height approximately 7 cm (3 in) above expected final height.[3] The increased gene dosage of three X/Y chromosome pseudoautosomal region (PAR1) SHOX genes has been postulated as a cause of the increased stature seen in all three sex chromosome trisomies: 47,XXX, 47,XXY, and 47,XYY.[4]

Severe acne was noted in a very few early case reports, but dermatologists specializing in acne now doubt the existence of a relationship with 47,XYY.[5]

Testosterone levels (prenatally and postnatally) are normal in 47,XYY males.[6] Most 47,XYY males have normal sexual development and usually have normal fertility.

Also, there are XXX as well.

Re:Is YY possible?

[19thNervousBreakdown]

That hasn't been true since SNI, which is supported in Apache 2.2, Firefox 2.0, IE 7, Opera 8, and Safari 3.2.1. Probably Chrome too, but I'm too lazy to look that up.

Anyway, here's a guide: http://en.gentoo-wiki.com/wiki/Apache2/SSL_and_Name_Based_Virtual_Hosts#Configuring_Name_Based_SSL_Virtual_Hosts

obligatory...

[SharpFang]

Son of Kronar

(nsfw)

I for one

[arndawg]

welcome our new gaylords. Or gaylings. whatever.

Re:I for one

[Krneki]

Would a gayling be gay itself? Potentially quite an interesting experiment.

How do you know the parents were gay? Did you watch them having sex together?

Re:I for one

[HBoar]

Presumably the person/animal the OP was referring to is called a gayling because it's parents were gay. If you RTFA, you'll see that it suggests that gay couples could have offspring using a technique similar to the one performed with the mice.

I'm not trying to be offensive to anyone -- I'm just saying that such a procedure has the potential to clear up the whole nature/nurture debate in the case of homosexuality.

Re:I for one

[noTimeAtAll]

How about having four granddads and no grandmas? I'm sure men are all good with woodworking and stuff, but who would cook the soup for grandgaylings?

Re:I for one

[MichaelSmith]

such a procedure has the potential to clear up the whole nature/nurture debate in the case of homosexuality.

Why? Gay people have normal children all the time. Doesn't that give you enough data?

Re:I for one

[Soul-Burn666]

You welcome robotic dogs from the 60's?
They come with a bone of their own.

Re:I for one

[cronco]

That would, probably once and for all, settle the debate if "gayness" is genetic or a "lifestyle choice".

Re:I for one

[HBoar]

Two gay people of the same sex can not currently have children that are decended from both of them, are you suggesting that they can?

If you are meaning that gay men have children with gay women, then maybe they do, but it's possible that gay men and gay women are gay through different causes.

So no, there isn't enough data. Otherwise there wouldn't be so many studies being done on the subject.

Re:I for one

[HBoar]

Seriously, how is this flamebait? Maybe 'gayling' isn't a terribly PC term for what I am talking about, but the OP coined it, not me. I'm not sure how postulating that an experiment that would answer a much studied question (i.e. the influences of nature/nurture on homosexuality) would be interesting counts as flaimebait....

Re:I for one

[arndawg]

No I was refering to TFA.

Re:I for one

[Anonymous Coward]

I still fail to see how it would clear up the "nature vs nurture" debate any better than doing studies of straight couples to see how many produce gay children. In neither case is nurture definitively ruled out.

Re:I for one

[gstoddart]

Presumably the person/animal the OP was referring to is called a gayling because it's parents were gay.

So, if both of your parents are assholes, would you be an asshole-ling? If they're morons, would you be a moron-ling? That really is just a stupid (and made up) distinction.

Hell, if TFA is accurate, with a DNA sample, someone could make the love child of Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sylvester Stallone. Does that make either of them gay? Does that tangibly change the nomenclature of combining, oh, Harvey Firestein and Richard Simmons?

I would argue it's just looking to perpetuate some bigotry.

I'm not trying to be offensive to anyone -- I'm just saying that such a procedure has the potential to clear up the whole nature/nurture debate in the case of homosexuality.

How is that going to clear anything up?

The nature/nurture debate is a false dichotomy -- it's not all nature, and it's not all nurture. Hell, even if you're born gay, is it genetic, or just a trick of the wiring in your brain partly caused by chemical conditions in the womb? It's more likely a combination of all of them, and then there's probably other factors. It's just that some people refuse to believe that homosexuality is a natural occurrence.

Humans are massively complex critters, and it's not like a computer program -- it doesn't generate the same results consistently from the same starting point. People simply are gay, or not ... or any number of points in between.

The only people who want to prove/disprove the nature/nurture debate are trying to support their agenda and either say that homosexuality is a choice, and therefore a sin -- or that it isn't a choice, and therefore god made them that way, and it can't be a sin. The debate serves no real purpose.

I bet if you made children from two gay men, two straight men, and one of each -- you'd find you can't make heads or tails out of it. It's way too complex to pigeon hole it into "the children of gays would all be gay".

Re:I for one

[jace_d]

"Gay people,have normal children ". That is true, but they've been having them heterosexually so far. If it is indeed genetic, then the gay gene(Gay gene? ) is a recessive gene. Further,the offspring of two homosexual people would have a higher chance of being one. I thought of it like the brown-eye blue eye gig. So yeah, more data needed.

Re:I for one

[microbox]

I'm just saying that such a procedure has the potential to clear up the whole nature/nurture debate in the case of homosexuality.

The whole nature-nurture debate has already been clarified on homosexuality and generally. The only reason why we keep arguing about it is because it doesn't jive with some people's politics:

• Homophobes and the religious-right want to change peoples "immoral" behaviour, and therefore cannot stand the thought that biology (God?) created certain people as homos
• Feminists/post-modernists/social-constructionists cannot stand the thought that biology has any substantial role in anything, and therefore rail against any suggest of biological essentialism

In both cases, the nature-nurture debate is confounded with moral issues. Whether fundamentalist christian, or feminist, the moralist believes that they are right and must somehow change society. Facts are too threatening to a mind that constructs its identity in such a way.

Re:I for one

[dogmatixpsych]

Ah, but are they as "normal" as other people, especially when you correct for demographics? How do you define normal? Where's the research showing they are or are not just as normal as other people? Anecdotes do not make good scientific evidence when you are trying to generalize to an entire population.

Re:I for one

[Krneki]

I understand, but do we have any proof that the mice fathers were gay?

Re:I for one

[MichaelSmith]

Why? Gay people have normal children all the time. Doesn't that give you enough data?

I know what you're trying to say, but PLEASE, "gay" and "normal" are not opposites.

By normal I meant "conceived by normal means".

Re:I for one

[MichaelSmith]

"Gay people,have normal children ".

That is true, but they've been having them heterosexually so far.

I suppose some of them have children by IVF, which (the way you have made the comparison) is not heterosexual sex. But if gay people have children by this technique they won't be using gay sex to accomplish that.

What a waste of money

[Chrisq]

All the world needs is bloody gay mice.

Re:What a waste of money

[Spad]

These mice are no more gay than using a surrogate mother is adultery.

They're combining DNA, not teaching mice to appreciate musical theatre.

Re:What a waste of money

[Krneki]

All the world needs is bloody gay mice.

Why, did the two male fathers had sex with each other?

Re:What a waste of money

[mug funky]

amazing spambot still fails turing test... news at 11

Re:What a waste of money

[microbox]

They're combining DNA, not teaching mice to appreciate musical theatre.

How do you know that appreciating musical theatre does not come from special combinations of DNA? Where do you think your personality comes from? Ask any parent, and they'll tell you that their infant come into this world with their own individual personality -- what them Christian folk call a soul. behavioural geneticists have well established the strong genetic influence on personality and behaviour.

Re:What a waste of money

[Locke2005]

These mice are no more gay than using a surrogate mother is adultery.

That sorta depends on how you go about fertilizing the egg in the surrogate. Personally, I prefer the old-fashioned method.

Re:What a waste of money

[kalirion]

These mice are no more gay than using a surrogate mother is adultery.

They're combining DNA, not teaching mice to appreciate musical theatre.

So you're saying being gay is a choice then?

Oh, Great!

[RobotRunAmok]

Now instead of the mice in my house just eating my cheese, I have to worry about them reupholstering my furniture.

Re:Oh, Great!

[mcgrew]

You need a cat. Just don't get a homophobic one, or the mice will chase them!

Re:Oh, Great!

[Locke2005]

I've seen your house... having it redecorated by mice could only be an improvement!

Re:i'm fine with that

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm... I know this is slashdot and all, but did you read TFA??

Scientists said they were able to able to achieve this remarkable result by "forcing a mouse to have sex with his father."

And...

Human trials of the new procedure are set to begin in January 2011.

And also...

When asked if he was concerned that his son might object to being forced to participate in this study, Mr. Anonymous Coward Sr. responded "This is a life or death situation here. My son had 38 years to go out and find a real woman to procreate with - but instead he spent all his time in my down in our basement twittering with his Ham radio. He had his chance to spread his seed around and pass on our genetic legacy, but he wasted it. Now it's my turn to take over and make sure that we've got a suitable heir to the family dynasty. My son can push back as much as he wants, but as far as I'm concerned, that's only going to make my job that much easier."

Close, but no cigar

[Anonymous Coward]

In the work reported today, the Behringer team manipulated fibroblasts from a male (XY) mouse fetus

Yeah yeah yeah. Just two fathers. That's some trick there, getting a male to generate a fetus. What an age we live in.

Cut me a break, and at least report that a female was in some way required, OK? I know it does not have the same "zing" as a story not involving females at all, but still.

Re:Close, but no cigar

[HBoar]

It does go on to propose that invitro fertilisation could be used, wiht a female only used for incubation. Presumably it's not outside the realms of possiblity for an incubator capable of this being created in the future, so the whole process may not need a female.

Re:Close, but no cigar

[clone52431]

Yeah, the thing of real importance was the one completely not mentioned (summary or comments, from what I’ve seen so far):

If they created a mouse embryo and brought it to term with no surrogate mother, this is indeed a breakthrough. If they used a surrogate mother... meh!

Same sex couples, with limitations

[gringer]

It also opens the provocative possibility of same-sex couples having their own genetic children, the researchers note.

As long as they're happy with only female children, or are males themselves.

Re:Same sex couples, with limitations

[Jappus]

It also opens the provocative possibility of same-sex couples having their own genetic children, the researchers note.

As long as they're happy with only female children, or are males themselves.

You know, if they are able to get two arbitrary (male/female) sets of genetic code to combine, I imagine it's not so much of a stretch to assume that you can either:

1.) Introduce a Y chromosome from a third party or
2.) Convert the gene sequences from an X chromosome into a Y chromosome (or at least those parts that are compatible)

You know, that's the nearly unqiue property of genetic engineering, the most pressing issue is not whether something is possible at all, but whether it is morally acceptable.

Re:Same sex couples, with limitations

[HertzaHaeon]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but why would men be limited this way? It would seem that it would rathe rbe two women who would limited to only daughters, because they only have X chromosomes. Men have both X and Y chromosomes. Can't they be combined as both XY and XX?

Re:Same sex couples, with limitations

[clone52431]

1.) Introduce a Y chromosome from a third party

Well, obviously! The whole point was to avoid that.

Re:Same sex couples, with limitations

[clone52431]

Maybe I'm missing something here ... Men have both X and Y chromosomes. Can't they be combined as both XY and XX?

Yes... I think the part that you’re missing is the part where they did exactly that.

Re:Same sex couples, with limitations

[oliverthered]

well property is thief.

Answer, all of the above.

I could have said

well is

Re:Same sex couples, with limitations

[oliverthered]

no replyability

female - female ?

[z-j-y]

so lesbian couples will only have daughters? and the daughters are probably lesbians too? Amazons!

Damn

[ifiwereasculptor]

Couldn't those scientists just have adopted, if they wanted them so badly? Mice prodution is already high enough - now the issue should be distribution. Think of the baby mice!

Re:Some scientific pursuits we should refrain from

[Opportunist]

How does one lead to the other?

All this could accomplish is that two men will be able to have biological offspring. And if you can give me one good reason why that shouldn't be, without invoking your imaginary friend up on a fluffy cloud whose opinion doesn't really mean that much to me (unless my friend Harvey's opinion starts meaning anything to you), I'd like to hear it.

Males from females

[Troll-Under-D'Bridge]

I've always assumed that females are more durable than males (long life span, more resistant to diseases, etc). If there's one sex in danger of extinction, it's the males of the species. So I think it's more valuable research to try and figure out how to create male babies from the eggs or stem cells of two donor mothers. Of course, we can always resort to cloning, but that would not lead to the diversity that's the main benefit of sexual reproduction (aside from pleasures of the one-night stand that is).

Re:Males from females

[sourcerror]

"I've always assumed that females are more durable than males (long life span, more resistant to diseases, etc)."

You cannot know how much of the shorter lifespan is because of gender roles. (Be macho, binge drinking etc.)

Re:Males from females

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you realise that genetic engineering is pretty much at the stage of reshuffling a deck of cards?
The technology of producing working Y-chromosomes out of thin air is about as close as a replicator synthesizing your favourite Klingon dish out of raw sewage.

Re:Males from females

[eyenot]

... I'm surprised how few people remember that just a year ago, or so, the news was that scientists finally decided to poke around with an egg plus an egg and found that it's insanely easy to fertilize an egg using the DNA extracted from another egg, no sperm required.

I mean, without keeping that in mind, this news has no context or relevance.

Re:Males from females

[delinear]

Not to mention women have a much shorter window during which they can produce offspring, while men can pretty much carry on right up until the day they die, so unless the entire gender disappears at once, it's likely much easier for males to do their bit to recover from an almost extinction level event than females.

Re:Males from females

[locallyunscene]

"I've always assumed that females are more durable than males (long life span, more resistant to diseases, etc)."

You cannot know how much of the shorter lifespan is because of gender roles. (Be macho, binge drinking etc.)

Actually increased testosterone has been shown to decrease lifespan due to stresses on the body. But that also doesn't support the OP's argument because there's no reason for a two father child to produce more testosterone than a one father child.

Re:Males from females

[mcgrew]

I've always assumed that females are more durable than males (long life span, more resistant to diseases, etc).

From my observation (and I've been observing for 58 years), your assumption is incorrect.

150 years ago, women had shorter lifespans than men, because so many died in childbirth.

Note that the lifespan differences in the sexes are shrinking. That's because the reason women live longer than men, on average, is mostly because men's jobs kill them. Note that the most dangerous jobs are still dominated by males.

And I've seen no indication whatever that women are more resistant to disease than men, but I have seen that a woman will usually seek medical care when a man won't.

So I think it's more valuable research to try and figure out how to create male babies from the eggs or stem cells of two donor mothers.

Current knowledge says that it's impossible. A man has an X and a Y chromosome, so can produce either sex, while a woman has two X chromosomes. You can't have a man without a Y chromosome.

Considering that there are six billion humans on the planet, most of whom greatly enjoy having sex with members of the opposite sex, I don't think either sex is in danger of becoming extinct.

Re:Males from females

[sourcerror]

Actually, as time progressed and women became more emancipated, there were also more alcoholics and smokers among them, which further reduced the age gap (Hungarian statistics).

Re:The beginning of the end.

[mcneely.mike]

dying... from deceases

I like that.... i want to dye from deceasing... oooh! ooooh! can i tie-dye from deceasing?
Craig: "That would be so cool."

Re:Some scientific pursuits we should refrain from

[HBoar]

No, I don't agree. And what does it have to do with making human-animal hybrids? And what would be wrong with that, anyway? I'd do that -- well, I don't have the knowledge to be able to, but I certainly wouldn't protest if someone else did it. Surely you can see the advantage of having a human head/brain and the body of a horse?

At long last!!

[Anonymous Coward]

A cure for sexual reproduction!!

Re:Some scientific pursuits we should refrain from

[Opportunist]

Is it wrong if the first thing that flashed through my mind was "porn industry would love it"?

Twins

[krystofa]

So the question is, did they take all the good genes from the two fathers but somehow accidentally a smaller less perfect twin was produced and.... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096320/ (for those that don't get the reference, jokes are always best if they need to be explained) - Christopher

Re:Monstrous fetuses will prevent it

[HBoar]

Why? You may belive that there is some fundamental difference between humans and other animals, but myself and many others do not. That doesn't make us uncivilised.

On the other hand, I don't think we as a species need any additional vectors for reproducing -- we seem to do well enough as it is...

Re:Monstrous fetuses will prevent it

[Anonymous Coward]

The same could be said about IV fertilization and other fertility treatments. In fact, the same thing WAS said about them, but it was a strawman every bit there as it is here. You don't even know what's gonna happen, yet you have no problem with conjuring the image of numerous "monstrous fetuses" that die "soon after birth", apparently in an attempt to provoke both disgust and sympathy in your audience on the same time. Who's gonna think of the monster children?

Life's a bitch and then you die

[Moraelin]

Well, then life's a bitch and then your zygote dies.

The Y chromosome is not a variant of the X chromosome. The X chromosome is one you actually need. The Y chromosome actually has very little information, and most of it related to testosterone production and sperm production. It doesn't even encode most of the differences between a male and a female body. Those are already taken care of by other proteins and testosterone.

In programming terms the Y chromosome is a little more than just a flag, but basically at an oversimplified level you can view it as a flag. The real important information is elsewhere.

So basically it's akin to, dunno, if you took out the .exe from the world of warcraft directory, but flagged it as Cataclysm compatible twice. It ain't gonna be very useful.

Re:Life's a bitch and then you die

[tonk]

Thanks for putting what I wanted to know in terms I could understand. :o)

Re:The beginning of the end.

[lacqui]

Depending on the way you decease, you could dye your surroundings blood-red, shit-brown, or any other bodily colour.

You think that's bad?

[Moraelin]

You think that's bad? How about, now when the boss rides your ass all afternoon, you can actually get pregnant? Man, trust science to make IT and programming jobs even shittier ;)

Re:You think that's bad?

[Alsee]

If you're even considering the possibility of getting pregnant when your boss rides your ass, You're Doing It Wrong.

-

Re:The beginning of the end.

[Chrisq]

I'd rather give money to fags than to wankers, given a choice.

You'll disappoint a lot of slashdotters here.

Quotation

[Anonymous Coward]

It also opens the provocative possibility of same-sex couples having their own genetic children, the researchers note."

Said by the XENOPHOBIC annonymous writer.

Re:Some scientific pursuits we should refrain from

[Le Marteau]

And if you can give me one good reason why that shouldn't be, without invoking your imaginary friend up on a fluffy cloud whose opinion doesn't really mean that much to me (unless my friend Harvey's opinion starts meaning anything to you), I'd like to hear it.

Would you like it if both your parents were male, and incubated in a surrogate womb for hire?

Would you like it if all your friends knew that? Because by the time they are teenagers, that kind of information will be freely available by doing the equivalent of a "Google".

In the future, Julian Assange style data dumps will not be limited to banks and governments, and will be orders of magnitude more common than today. And at the top of the list will be documents regarding people's true lineage.

Forever available to anyone with an internet connection.

Re:Some scientific pursuits we should refrain from

[Chrisq]

No, I don't agree. And what does it have to do with making human-animal hybrids? And what would be wrong with that, anyway? I'd do that -- well, I don't have the knowledge to be able to, but I certainly wouldn't protest if someone else did it. Surely you can see the advantage of having a human head/brain and the body of a horse?

Is it wrong if the first thing that flashed through my mind was "porn industry would love it"?

I think that a lot of slashdotters are thinking of the advantage of doing it the other way round to GP's suggestion , like the body of a woman and the brain of a rabbit.

Re:what lesbians were tlaking about?

[Chrisq]

IN YOUR FACE LESBIANS :D

This conjures up a very interesting picture .... let me just think about it for a bit.

Re:Monstrous fetuses will prevent it

[jellyfrog]

Indeed, we're not going to be doing this anytime soon, but I don't expect never. Perhaps a few hundred years should be enough to refine our techniques to the point where we could do this without introducing any defects whatsoever. "Opens the possibility" is just the start..

Can I be both fathers?

[funfail]

So the same method can theoretically be applied to two sperms from the same male. I can be the father and mother of my own child then.

Should he/she be considered my "child" or my "clone"?

Re:Can I be both fathers?

[clone52431]

Dad, is that you?

Re:Can I be both fathers?

[mibe]

If you're using your sperm, the offspring won't be genetically identical to you since the production of sperm has already shuffled your genes around. So technically all the child's genetic material would be a subset of yours, but would not be identical. The easiest example of this is that you could create a female using two sperm from the same father, provided you get two sperm carrying X chromosomes (neither Y); both X chromosomes would be identical to each other - and to every X chromosome in your cells - but the offspring would be female, not a clone of the father. If you've had some basic biology you may recall good old Punnett Squares. If so, the combination of sperm from a single father to create offspring is the same as doing a self cross in plants.

Re:Some scientific pursuits we should refrain from

[MichaelSmith]

To me, this is one of them. Don't you agree? What about if you could make a human-animal hybrid, would you do that?

Or even cats and dogs, living together.

The end of vi vs emacs?

[Anonymous Coward]

Children of two fathers? Now we can fix everythin! a Raymon - Stallman children would settle the differences between vi and emacs!

Re:Some scientific pursuits we should refrain from

[gyaku_zuki]

Why the hell did you bring Assange into this? Lol. You are paranoid if you think the world cares that you have 2 male/female/whatever parents. I like to think that in a future where we have FUCKING ARTIFICIAL WOMBS we have got past the stage of caring who people's parents are. I'd rather have two parents who were loving enough to go to all that trouble to make me than someone who got knocked up on a drunken night out, or couldn't be bothered wearing a condom that night etc...

Re:Some scientific pursuits we should refrain from

[Schadrach]

...and a couple of decades later, no one will care anymore.

That's also conveniently what I see as the ultimate result of businesses checking myspace and facebook profiles -- either the majority will become much tighter about how they present themselves on the 'net, or the current older crop will die and eventually no one will care because it's not "shocking" anymore -- everyone does it and always has.

Mice have it all

[kstahmer]

A while back, scientists cured obesity in mice. Now, in addition to a mouse having a mom & dad, it can also have a dad & dad and a mom & mom. Mice have it all. Humans are still waiting. John Steinbeck would be pleased.

Re:Mice have it all

[eyenot]

They've already shown it's easy to fertilize an egg using another egg. This just *barely* puts us back in the game, again. Anyways, saying this is excited is like being gay and saying "ha, take that, ladies!"

Re:Mice have it all

[mcgrew]

John Steinbeck would be pleased.

So would Douglas Adams.

Re:Monstrous fetuses will prevent it

[segedunum]

Why? You may belive that there is some fundamental difference between humans and other animals, but myself and many others do not. That doesn't make us uncivilised.

This isn't right in humans or in any animals. We don't know what the long-term effect of this would be in mice. The point the OP is making is that humans have differences in genetics that make this process even more fraught with danger than the basic stuff they've managed to accomplish so far. Allowing offspring to go through that is totally uncivilised.

On the other hand, I don't think we as a species need any additional vectors for reproducing -- we seem to do well enough as it is...

Mark my words, crazy fuckers and those promoting 'equality' for same-sex couples will be pushing for this. I have no problems with same-sex relationships but this kind of stuff is where we need to draw a very clear line.

Re:Some scientific pursuits we should refrain from

[elewton]

Or an entire preserve of human-body bonobo-brained animals. You could charge admission.

Bernie Bunny

[skywatcher2501]

has two daddies now.

Two times child support?

[PolygamousRanchKid]

I'm not sure that is a good idea.

female mitochondria DNA required

[ralphdaugherty]

I'm reading Oxygen by Nick Lane, and recreating with male mitochondria is a universal no no. Even worms while forming excrete the male mitochondria from the gametes used to form it.

The male mitochondria passed on is aged and defective, the female mitochondria an unused preserved version.

In other words, there's a reason it doesn't work the way it's being forced to work. That's why we have sexes. Thank God or evolution, your choice.

  rd

Re:female mitochondria DNA required

[maxume]

Does the book specifically mention the maleness of the mitochondria being the problem, or is it more that the cell it came from just completed a rather long race?

Re:female mitochondria DNA required

[geekoid]

You present a false choice. Evolution is a well studied and documented fact. A fact that in no way disproves god. It's only 'contested' by people who don't even understand their own theology and history of their book.

Re:female mitochondria DNA required

[Rich0]

Interesting. Do you have a citation for this study where they actually grew embryos to term using male and female-originated mitochodria and determined that it actually made a difference?

I'm not quite sure why the DNA in the mitochondria would be any more aged and defective than the haploid genome in the sperm in the first place. It is true that eggs in a woman are essentially formed early vs sperm forming late, but that applies to all DNA in the sperm and not just the mitochondria.

Maybe you're right and that it is this way for a reason. However, having a nice argument doesn't really translate into proof...

Re:female mitochondria DNA required

[Stregano]

I thank Arnold, if it was not for his awesome movie where he gets pregnant, maybe it would not push these hard hitting :only a guy has a baby" issues

Re:female mitochondria DNA required

[Magada]

Erm. It's quite the commonly-known fact that solely female mitochondria get inherited in humans. In fact, a single case of a human male having inherited paternal mDNA is known to science. He is sterile.

Re:female mitochondria DNA required

[ralphdaugherty]

Does the book specifically mention the maleness of the mitochondria being the problem, or is it more that the cell it came from just completed a rather long race?

yes, the book addresses both. It's not that the mitochondria is used and damaged by the sperm, but rather that the copy from the male used to make the sperm is used and damaged, the older the male the more damaged.

The female mitochondria is preserved unused in the egg and universally used as the mitochondria in cells in the offspring. That is why in DNA analysis you can track the maternal lineage with the mitochondria DNA.

I think based on studies cited in the book if they tried to continue this experiment for three or four generations it would peter out.

  rd

Re:female mitochondria DNA required

[preda1or]

Thank God or evolution

I thank God for evolution!

Re:female mitochondria DNA required

[ralphdaugherty]

You present a false choice. Evolution is a well studied and documented fact. A fact that in no way disproves god. It's only 'contested' by people who don't even understand their own theology and history of their book.

I did not mean to present it as a forced pick of one or the other. It was a play on the words thank god for sexes, or evolution, or both :), take your pick.

  rd

Re:female mitochondria DNA required

[ralphdaugherty]

Interesting. Do you have a citation for this study where they actually grew embryos to term using male and female-originated mitochodria and determined that it actually made a difference?

I'm not quite sure why the DNA in the mitochondria would be any more aged and defective than the haploid genome in the sperm in the first place. It is true that eggs in a woman are essentially formed early vs sperm forming late, but that applies to all DNA in the sperm and not just the mitochondria.

Maybe you're right and that it is this way for a reason. However, having a nice argument doesn't really translate into proof...

hi there, I won't go into a lot here, as much as necessary if you follow up, but all life with nucleus and mitochondria (most everything but bacteria) uses female mitochondria exclusively in offspring.

Your point about the other DNA being aged in both male and female is true, but nucleus DNA is protected by a protein cover. The DNA of mitochondria, a cell within a cell, is like bacteria and has no protective protein covering. Bacteria get around this by dividing rapidly. The mechanism for passing on pure mitochondria was to preserve it in a female egg, thus arose the need for sexes.

Again, this and much else about cells, such as DNA-RNA and other quite complex cellular mechanisms that we read about, is universal in all life. That was quite eye-opening.

  rd
 

Re:female mitochondria DNA required

[Rich0]

It's quite the commonly-known fact that solely female mitochondria get inherited in humans.

Yes. I knew that already.

What isn't known is if it actually makes a difference. An anecdote doesn't constitute strong evidence - especially a human example since clearly no living human was conceived under controlled experimental conditions.

Re:female mitochondria DNA required

[russotto]

Erm. It's quite the commonly-known fact that solely female mitochondria get inherited in humans. In fact, a single case of a human male having inherited paternal mDNA is known to science. He is sterile.

There's a lot of sampling bias there. His paternal mDNA was discovered only because it was defective. It's quite possible there are a large number (though small percentage) of people carrying paternal mDNA who are never discovered because there's no reason to look.

Re:female mitochondria DNA required

[Rich0]

The DNA of mitochondria, a cell within a cell, is like bacteria and has no protective protein covering.

And why should it last any longer after 100 generations of egg production and 30 years of dormancy than it would last after 100 generations of sperm production and no dormancy? It isn't like the eggs aren't duplicates in the first place - the difference is when they form.

Maybe it makes a difference, and maybe there is life on titan. Saying it doesn't make it so.

The mechanism for passing on pure mitochondria was to preserve it in a female egg, thus arose the need for sexes.

While an interesting idea, I'd like to see some proof that mitochondrial preservation was the primary driver behind the need for sexes. Could not hermaphroditic organisms employ the same mechanism to protect mDNA, assuming such protection is even necessary?

Again, this and much else about cells, such as DNA-RNA and other quite complex cellular mechanisms that we read about, is universal in all life.

No argument there. The question is WHY is it conserved, and are all elements of this truly important, or do they just happen to come together?

I think the only thing that can truly answer these questions are experiments - not conjecture about mechanisms. Sure, you have to start with a hypothesis, but you can't stop there.

Re:female mitochondria DNA required

[Magada]

Hence my qualification "known to science", yes.

Re:female mitochondria DNA required

[Yosho]

Evolution is a well studied and documented fact. A fact that in no way disproves god.

While evolution doesn't disprove the possibility of supernatural deities, it does present some serious problems for the Christian concept. If you accept the modern version of evolution as the explanation of how our species got here, then that means there was no "Adam and Eve"; humanity is not a fixed species, but has gradually changed over the course of history from our ancestors. There is no single point at which we could look at our ancestors and say "this is the first human."

The lack of Adam and Eve, however, means that there was no Original Sin. One of the core concepts of Christianity is that Adam and Eve were originally perfect, but due to the Original Sin, they and all of their descendents (including us) are sinners and require redemption through Jesus Christ; without redemption, we are doomed to spend the rest of eternity in Hell.

No Original Sin means that we are not all sinners who deserve to burn because of it. In other words, redemption through Jesus Christ is unnecessary, and the core concept of Christianity falls apart.

The other possibility is that, if the Christian God is real, then rather than having the Original Sin placed upon us due to Adam and Eve's actions, God intentionally made us flawed, knowing that a significant portion of humanity would commit horrible atrocities upon each other and then be tortured eternally for it. That's more like a scientist who's conducting experiments on a bacteria colony that a loving God who wants his creations to be good to each other, if you ask me.

So, you are correct that evolution does not disprove the existence of a god or gods, but in order to reconcile it with the Christian God, you would have to take such a figurative interpretation of the events in the Bible that you're not really following the tenets of Christianity any more.

Re:female mitochondria DNA required

[locallyunscene]

It's a bit of both. In order to prevent the more independent organelles which have DNA from fighting for the right to live on in the successor and thereby potentially damage the cell, one of the sets of organelles must be discarded from the sex cells. The descendants of the genes that do this are more likely to have healthy offspring and pass it on to the next generation. This is the theory why in most organisms that have sex, one of the genders' sex cells will discard the organelles. Once this convention is established, genes that can gain numbers or other advantages at the cost of the healthiness of the organelles are selected for because there is no detriment to the offspring.

Re:female mitochondria DNA required

[ralphdaugherty]

There's a lot of sampling bias there. His paternal mDNA was discovered only because it was defective. It's quite possible there are a large number (though small percentage) of people carrying paternal mDNA who are never discovered because there's no reason to look.

The maternal mitochondria lineage is universal in all life, not just humans. I agree this one example doesn't prove anything, but I wasn't aware of it and had nothing to do with the statement.

First, by saying that maternal mitochondria lineage is nearly universal, that means that male lineage isn't found to speak of in any samples of life when studied unless species is known to use both. A small percentage that's always missed? Possible, of course. Some studies of mouse mitochondria DNA suggest male is present in proportion to sperm to egg mitochondria, 1 in 1000 to 10,000, too low to detect.

  Second, Nick Lane (English professor and science writer) in his book Oxygen cites a 1999 Nature article by Oregon Health Science University that male mitochondria in cattle is tagged with protein ubiquitin in embryo and marked for destruction. So as is known with Drosophila larvae, male mitochondria in embryo is actively destroyed.

  Reason again is mitochondria from males is from active cells where mitochondria DNA is damaged over time by oxidation, much more than nuclear DNA due to converting oxygen and their DNA is unprotected. Mitochondria in females eggs are stored early, not active, and passed on as pristine as possible.

  While male mitochondria could work, nothing survived that tried it.

  rd

Re:female mitochondria DNA required

[ralphdaugherty]

And why should it last any longer after 100 generations of egg production and 30 years of dormancy than it would last after 100 generations of sperm production and no dormancy? It isn't like the eggs aren't duplicates in the first place - the difference is when they form.

Oxidation from respiration. The female mitochondria is inactive and undamaged from oxidation.

The mechanism for passing on pure mitochondria was to preserve it in a female egg, thus arose the need for sexes.

While an interesting idea, I'd like to see some proof that mitochondrial preservation was the primary driver behind the need for sexes. Could not hermaphroditic organisms employ the same mechanism to protect mDNA, assuming such protection is even necessary?

It does in some species. However no species that attempted to reproduce with actively used mitochondria survived.

Again, this and much else about cells, such as DNA-RNA and other quite complex cellular mechanisms that we read about, is universal in all life.

No argument there. The question is WHY is it conserved, and are all elements of this truly important, or do they just happen to come together?

I think the only thing that can truly answer these questions are experiments - not conjecture about mechanisms. Sure, you have to start with a hypothesis, but you can't stop there.

Nick Lane (English professor and science writer) in his book Oxygen cites a 1999 Nature article by Oregon Health Science University that male mitochondria in cattle is tagged with protein ubiquitin in embryo and marked for destruction. So as is known with Drosophila larvae, male mitochondria in embryo is actively destroyed.

Reason again is mitochondria from males is from active cells where mitochondria DNA is damaged over time by oxidation, much more than nuclear DNA due to converting oxygen and their DNA is unprotected. Mitochondria in females eggs are stored early, not active, and passed on as pristine as possible.

While male mitochondria could work, nothing survived that tried it.

rd

Re:female mitochondria DNA required

[ralphdaugherty]

It's a bit of both. In order to prevent the more independent organelles which have DNA from fighting for the right to live on in the successor and thereby potentially damage the cell, one of the sets of organelles must be discarded from the sex cells. The descendants of the genes that do this are more likely to have healthy offspring and pass it on to the next generation. This is the theory why in most organisms that have sex, one of the genders' sex cells will discard the organelles. Once this convention is established, genes that can gain numbers or other advantages at the cost of the healthiness of the organelles are selected for because there is no detriment to the offspring.

But nuclear DNA from both are used. Only mitochondria DNA is used from only one parent. That establishes the female.

  rd

Re:female mitochondria DNA required

[locallyunscene]

Right, the reply to your post was asking why the male organelles were discarded. The answer is that the nuclear DNA is persisting at the expense of the mitochondrial DNA and that this relationship came about because it is beneficial to the offspring.

Re:female mitochondria DNA required

[ralphdaugherty]

Right, the reply to your post was asking why the male organelles were discarded. The answer is that the nuclear DNA is persisting at the expense of the mitochondrial DNA and that this relationship came about because it is beneficial to the offspring.

No, the nuclear and mitochondria DNA are symbiotic. Mitochondria is essentially a bacteria that is incorporated in cells. It has its own DNA, replicates separately within the cell, etc.

Nuclear DNA is kept from degrading by the merging of male and female DNA, which is one survival technique. Bacteria survive without degradation by splitting rapidly, but within a cell the mitochondria stays there and degrades from oxidation over time. The survival mechanism was for female to preserve an unused mitochondria in eggs and store inactivated. The female mitochondria is then used for the mitochondria in the offspring.

The short answer is that aged degraded mitochondria doesn't survive well in generations and only the mechanism that preserved it unused survived. The two nuclear DNA's merging is just as important in that mechanism to keep nuclear DNA viable, but its the stored unused mitochondria DNA by females that establishes sex.

Oxygen by Nick Lane is an excellent, eye opening book. I'm moving on to another one of his and books by others on this subject.

  rd

Re:female mitochondria DNA required

[n dot l]

And why should it last any longer after 100 generations of egg production and 30 years of dormancy than it would last after 100 generations of sperm production and no dormancy? It isn't like the eggs aren't duplicates in the first place - the difference is when they form.

It's not so much that they're damaged; it's that they're essentially bacteria, and (without a nice hardened nucleus) every little thing (including all of lovely chemicals that they themselves produce) rips into their DNA, causing them to evolve at an absurd rate. Sperm mitochondria aren't broken, they just aren't likely to be very useful outside of sperm cells (or whatever their progenitors are called).

Re:female mitochondria DNA required

[locallyunscene]

If you plan on reading more books on this subject I recommend The Red Queen by Matt Ridley. It can explain the point I'm trying to make much better than I can.

Re:female mitochondria DNA required

[Rich0]

Again, that is a lovely hypothesis, complete with proposed mechanisms/etc. However, I still haven't seen anything more than "well, that's how it happens in nature" as an explanation for why it couldn't be otherwise.

I'm sure the natural process exists for a reason - but it doesn't have to be the reason that everybody thinks that it is.

The only way to find out is to experiment.

Re:female mitochondria DNA required

[ralphdaugherty]

So experiment away.

Mr. Black and White, meet Doctor Gray

[Zero__Kelvin]

"The whole gay marriage debate is completely moronic on both sides. If homosexually is genetic then by that same merit its also a biological imperfection and should be fixed (just as pedophilia and bestiality)."

I'm chronically heterosexual, but I have to say that if there is a genetic imperfection that needs to be fixed, it is the genetic imperfection that produces offspring that equate homosexually with pedophilia and bestiality. The goat and the child cannot consent, but an adult male can, and if psychology is right those on that side of the debate are also often deathly afraid that they might. Furthermore, smoking crystal meth is a choice, at least the first time you do it, yet most people are perfectly OK with judging that behavior and saying it it morally wrong, even though they preach freedom of choice. Either the whole human race is moronic on every issue (and I admit an argument to that effect could be made), or these things are not as clear cut as you assert them to be.

Re:Mr. Black and White, meet Doctor Gray

[VortexCortex]

Furthermore, smoking crystal meth is a choice, at least the first time you do it, yet most people are perfectly OK with judging that behavior and saying it it morally wrong,

Citation needed. Recreational drug use has been around since long before current social structure and laws came into being.

By your logic, would not alcohol also be judged by "most people" as morally wrong? What about marijuana? Apparently you are ignorant of the 60's & 70's, and/or have a very skewed view of what exactly a moral is.

Recreational drug use is recreational. We have warlords in Mexico running amok because our idiotic government won't legalize and tax the recreational drugs that give them power.

Remember the prohibition of alcohol and the gangsters that the sell of illegal alcohol funded? Clearly, people would rather purchase their recreational drugs from a safe, clean, regulated environment such as a grocery store, liquor store or pharmacy rather than purchasing their drug from a gangster... Evidence: Gangsters are not selling illegal alcohol to the public at large now that it is legal. Tobacco Cigarettes are nearly addictive as heroin, yet they are legal and not "morally" wrong to most people; The common belief is, "If you want to smoke, fine, just don't do it around those that do not smoke."

I would argue that most people judge moderate recreational drug use (such as drinking wine, liquor, beer) as moral. Many people I know only judge the use of other recreational drugs (such as marijuana, cocaine, crystal meth) as "wrong" because they are illegal. Many of these same people have told me that if using said drugs were not against the law then it would not be "wrong" to use these drugs in moderation. Therefore, I posit that this it is not so much a moral issue, but one of legality.

Abuse of any drug is wrong simply because abuse inherently implies wrongdoing. Please do not confuse Abuse with Use.

Re:Mr. Black and White, meet Doctor Gray

[Stregano]

They are definitely no clear cut, but the whole human race is very moronic on every issue

Re:Mr. Black and White, meet Doctor Gray

[Locke2005]

The goat... cannot consent...

But that cute little brown-eyed ewe, she was just askin' for it, I tell ya!

Re:Mr. Black and White, meet Doctor Gray

[Zero__Kelvin]

That's what they'll be saying about your little brown-eye when you go to jail for poking that little brown-eyed ewe, too.

Re:Mr. Black and White, meet Doctor Gray

[TangoMargarine]

Morally wrong, or just a very bad idea? If they don't hurt anybody else...but I'm digressing. I do agree with your original point, though.

Re:Mr. Black and White, meet Doctor Gray

[StikyPad]

I agree wholeheartedly with your position, but I find it interesting that we call it "drug abuse" when the drug is not suffering. It should really be called something else. "Self abuse" almost works, but usually it's the people around the abuser that suffer and besides, people should be free to abuse themselves if that's their thing.

Regardless, I think we need a better term to distinguish between responsible and/or drug use and the behavior that constitutes what we call drug abuse. As it stands "drug abuser" is basically interchangeable with "drug user" in our culture, which creates a false equivalence. Maybe we should have "drug education" like sex education -- we can't stop it; so let's teach people to be responsible about it. I can't ever see that happening in reality, but I think it would be fantastic, and I say this while holding the position that drug use is not something most people should engage in, but particularly people who aren't educated about how to avoid common pitfalls, and don't see the potential negative effects coming until it's far too late.

Wouldn't it be incestuous?

[r6144]

Wouldn't it be akin to having biological children with your own identical twin, with a high likelihood of birth defects, since your two sets of chromosomes are being remixed, possibly making your child getting two "bad" copies of some gene? It won't be like a clone at all.

So... who's yer daddy? n/t

[Stumbles]

That would have to really confuse a kid.

Re:human assisted reproductive technology

[martas]

oh come on, it was a joke! these people have no sense of humor...

Awkward...

[vgerclover]

I wouldn't want to sit at that christmas table...

Re:Some scientific pursuits we should refrain from

[vadim_t]

To me, this is one of them. Don't you agree?

No, I don't. Certainly not to a blanket statement without a reason for it. I don't arbitrarily reject things because it "feels wrong" or vague junk like that. You're going to have to provide a good reasoning for what's wrong with it.

What about if you could make a human-animal hybrid, would you do that?

RL furries, that would be so awesome.

Re:Some scientific pursuits we should refrain from

[Opportunist]

Would you like it if your mom was drunk that one night and got knocked up by a guy she didn't even know and that result is you?

No?

Gee, too bad, life ain't a request programme. You get what you're dealt.

Would I prefer if both my parents were guys who went through the hassle (legal, financial and otherwise) to have a child together and that child is me? Sure as fuck more than the alternative I gave above. Because one thing's sure: They definitely, truely and without a doubt WANTED me to be. I would've been no accident, not even a "happy coincidence", there is positively no way that I could have existed unless they really, really strongly wanted me to exist.

I honestly can't think of any better way to tell that parents WANT a child than going to impossible lengths to get one. Take in vitro. Does anyone doubt that these parents really wanted to have that child, an that this child will probably be loved more than many other kids who "just happened"?

Personally, I like the idea that my parents really wanted me.

AKA Jesus Mice

[digitaldc]

Jesus mice, the mice with TWO fathers.

Lonesome George

[ath1901]

That's good news for Lonesome George and his species(assuming you could get male and female offspring from a single father). Sure, there would be heavy inbreeding but it would not be worse than most European royal families.

Re:Lonesome George

[Kvasio]

but there is another father - Tony in a Prague Zoo (see the wikipedia article you linked to)

Re:Lonesome George

[ath1901]

That's excellent! Then the inbreeding would be down to somewhere between "European aristocracy" and "redneck".

That Took a Lot of Balls...

[iCharles]

Thanks--I'll be here all week.

a gay male couple

[circletimessquare]

could have daughters or sons

XY+XY -> XY/XX

but a gay female couple can only have daughters

XX+XX -> XX

Re:a gay male couple

[TheSync]

but a gay female couple can only have daughters

Indeed, but they could get a donor Y chromosome from someone - there aren't too many genes on it (only 86).

Or the Y chromosome could possibly be synthesized. It has 58 million base pairs, Venter's group has synthesized a chromosome of 1 million base pairs, so perhaps more work would be needed.

Re:End of an era

[Anonymous Coward]

Yo momma' so butch, she yo' pappa.

Not that simple...XY females are also possible

[voss]

Complete Androgen Insensivity Syndrome.

Biologically female except for the gonads. They have XY chromsomes but develop as women because
  they lack the receptors for male hormones. Also because they lack the male hormone receptors
they typically have very feminine features even for women.

Re:Monstrous fetuses will prevent it

[vadim_t]

This isn't right in humans or in any animals.

Why? Like quite a few people you seem to be really sure that it'd be wrong, but don't provide any reasons why.

So explain, why isn't it right?

We don't know what the long-term effect of this would be in mice. The point the OP is making is that humans have differences in genetics that make this process even more fraught with danger than the basic stuff they've managed to accomplish so far. Allowing offspring to go through that is totally uncivilised.

Well if we don't know what'll happen, then let's make some and see what happens? Why pointlessly speculate when you can try and see for yourself?

Mark my words, crazy fuckers and those promoting 'equality' for same-sex couples will be pushing for this. I have no problems with same-sex relationships but this kind of stuff is where we need to draw a very clear line.

Again, why? And I disagree on that any kind of line needs to be drawn.

Note

[jav1231]

When I first read this I thought, "Okay they got 2 mice from 2 fathers. Lots of people have children from two fathers." Poorly worded.

As for all the religious talk, if I had enough mod points I'd Off Topic all of them.

Re:Some scientific pursuits we should refrain from

[Mongoose Disciple]

...and a couple of decades later, no one will care anymore.

This.

Those who are alive long enough can remember when having children out of wedlock was a Big Deal. Or biracial children.

Now? Not so much.

... Here's an idea...

[houbou]

Medicine is to human what mechanic is to machines. The difference is.. for all machines out there, there are instruction manuals.. Ours.. is being figured out, little by little, everyday. Of course, I can only imagine what the Pope will say about the first human produced from 2 people with the same gender.. :) On the other hand.. who wants Rosie O'Donnell to be able to have babies?? :P

Y is X missing a bit

[Kim0]

Wrong.
The Y chromosome is totally unlike the X.
The Y chromosome is even coded differently, with redundant duplications.

They even look very differently
http://www.ingender.com/cs/blogs/gender_selection_news/y-chromosome.jpg

Men not needed any more?

[fantomas]

Well I am guessing (please correct and educate me here) that a womb was needed to bring the fertilised cells through embryonic stages to normal birth? So that means two women could have a child together without input from a man? Two men will still need a woman to carry the embryo through til birth though?

More like end game for men, rather than for women here. Might be all that radical 60s feminist rhetoric about men not being needed any more could come true?

I wonder ...

[enterix]

which father was breastfeeding...

Re:I wonder ...

[gknoy]

I hear you can milk anything with nipples. ;)

This has serious implications...

[jack1323]

"Brother from another Mother" will mean something completely different.

Re:Some scientific pursuits we should refrain from

[snspdaarf]

Only if you are on TV, Wilbur!

Re:Some scientific pursuits we should refrain from

[jlf278]

This is one of the most blatantly homo-phobic posts I've seen. Have you ever met someone who had 2 moms or 2 dads (or someone conceived in vitro)? I have and they were not ashamed by that. Why on Earth should they be ashamed by that? I'm not ashamed that my parents are jewish, despite that being jewish is probably less common than being homosexual.

Re:Monstrous fetuses will prevent it

[Dachannien]

You don't even know what's gonna happen, yet you have no problem with conjuring the image of numerous "monstrous fetuses" that die "soon after birth", apparently in an attempt to provoke both disgust and sympathy in your audience on the same time.

There's good reason to suspect, however, that monstrous human fetuses will happen if this research is applied to humans. There's evidence of this happening in cloning research in other animals. While some people have moral objections to the creation of unused embryos in IVF, that's a completely separate thing from what I'm talking about here.

Re:Some scientific pursuits we should refrain from

[Toze]

David Drake (and like a thousand other SF writers) beat you to it.

Re:Monstrous fetuses will prevent it

[Dachannien]

So explain, why isn't it right?

Because it involves intentionally producing individuals whose entire meager existence is fraught with pain. The pain itself may not be intentional, but it's certainly a result of the reckless disregard given by someone who would pursue this sort of research.

Well if we don't know what'll happen, then let's make some and see what happens?

There's already evidence to suggest that Bad Things will be produced by the learning stages of this process, at least part of the time. But sure, let's do it anyway. What do you say when something horrible is the result, just say "oops, my bad" and move on? Fat lot of good it does the person that lives in agony for its mercifully short life.

Does this mean the end of the Male sex?

[DynoMutt]

If two sexes are no longer required to sustain genetic diversity, what will the purpose of men be?

Only women have the components required to gestate a fetus to term, which is a major requirement to providing continuity to the species.

Maybe it would be possible to create a gestation chamber or use a different mammal for gestation, but the likelihood of doing this due to the cost is extremely low.

Men will become truly redundant. This development spells the doom of the Male sex. We may be two or three generations away from the matriarchical lesbian society.

Re:Monstrous fetuses will prevent it

[Dachannien]

You may belive that there is some fundamental difference between humans and other animals, but myself and many others do not.

From the standpoint of an external observer, maybe, maybe not. But we're humans ourselves, and we certainly take that into account in other arenas. We kill animals for food, but we don't kill humans for food. We criminalize the murder of humans, generally with a far greater severity of punishment than that given to those who commit cruelty against animals. You may argue that perhaps animals should be treated the same as humans in those regards, and certainly there are lots of people who believe that killing of animals for food is immoral, but very few people would argue that protections for human life should be lowered to match those given to animals.

Protests

[Quiet_Desperation]

In related news, God-fearing parents in Middletown, Kansas protested the local school board's approval of the new Disney Interactive educational game "Mickey Has Two Daddys" for grades 1 to 3. Students who have played the game have told everyone not to worry because the camera "sucked balls" and the controls were "totally tardo".

Adopt

[kellyb9]

I think these mice would be better off adopting.

Simple but incorrect or incomplete

[Anonymous Coward]

If they believed that the person is alive at the moment of conception, they would FIGHT against raped women getting an abortion. After all , the person is a person at the moment of conception, be it a rape or consensual. But in practice this is not what happen, except for really a minority of pro life. Most accept that abortion is done in case of rape. And here is the cinch. From the point of view of the fecundated egg or whatever, there is NO DIFFERENCE whether it was a rape or not. if one give the CHOICE to the women to abort in case of rape, DESPITE having the fecundated egg considered a human at conception, then there is no reason from the fecundated egg side to NOT give the same choice in case the egg was fecundated in any other situation than rape. No, the only reason to make a difference , is to hinge whether the fecundation was consensual or not, ergo, the reason is not depending on the egg being fecundated, the life begin, but rather, the reason being was the sex consensual or not. In other word I would wager this is more a PUNISHMENT for having consensual sex, rather than to save a life started. In other word, the "life start at fecundation" is bullshit. If it was not, then they would loudly and clearly say that raped women should not be aborted. They should just admit that they wish to see the women punished for having sex.

Re:Simple but incorrect or incomplete

[bondsbw]

Many in the pro-life crowd believe that rape does not justify abortion. But those who believe in abortion have forced a compromise. Arguing against abortion is an uphill battle; arguing against rape-justified abortion is like going up Mt. Everest.

If there are 46 million abortions per year in the world, and only 1% are due to rape (or incest), can you blame the pro-life crowd from trying to stop the 45.5 million needless abortions, or as they would put it, needless murders? I can't.

Besides, you call keeping the baby "punishment". Isn't that exactly how abortion supporters view it?

The equation of life changed by a test tube...

[earlyhiker]

Is anyone else disgusted by the fact that since the beginning of mankind (whatever the source) the natural fact of life is that it takes one man and one woman to procreate? and now a couple scientists want to re-engineer that core principle of life. If you believe God created man, this is wrong. If you believe evolution governs life, this is wrong.

We still have nothing but week inferences about how the super computer in a living cell work or how the instructions on a DNA strand actually produce a full body. And yet here we are trying to negate all gender value.

Cure all the genetic diseases and cancers plaguing the world and THEN we can talk about altering core principles that govern life.

Re:Monstrous fetuses will prevent it

[vadim_t]

Because it involves intentionally producing individuals whose entire meager existence is fraught with pain. The pain itself may not be intentional, but it's certainly a result of the reckless disregard given by someone who would pursue this sort of research.

How do you balance that with the suffering of other people that could be alleviated by the research? Research like this has a lot of potential in areas other than just making children. Things like growing replacement organs perhaps, which a lot of people need badly.

In other words, in your opinion, is causing pain for the sake a research always wrong, no matter the benefits obtained?

There's already evidence to suggest that Bad Things will be produced by the learning stages of this process, at least part of the time.

Like with any other research really. Ocassionally the best intended research goes much worse than anticipated. An experimental medicine has some sort of horrific side effect, or the study turns out to have deeply disturbing results (Milgram experiment for instance)

But sure, let's do it anyway. What do you say when something horrible is the result, just say "oops, my bad" and move on?

Pretty much that, yes. Obviously one doesn't go causing pain for shits and giggles, but ocassionally things are going to go wrong. If we let that us stop from doing any research we'd still be living in the middle ages with all the suffering that involves.

One should try to avoid causing unnecessary harm, and if things go wrong anyway the proper thing to do is to try to fix as much as possible.

Fat lot of good it does the person that lives in agony for its mercifully short life.

But you're not doing all that much good to the people who can't get well due to lack of research on the subject either.

Re:Marriage

[durrr]

The future of parenthood specialized lawyers look bright. Imagine the hilarious cases where the mother loses the child she birthed due to not being the biological mother.
Of course, this have almost already happened due to chimerism(the ovaries being a different genotype than the blood that is used for DNA test).

Snausages; Snausages

[Zero__Kelvin]

"Isn't the homosexuality trend self-fixing anyway? If 2 guys or 2 girls get together, and stay loyal for ever, they aint passing those genes on."

I think you not only failed to RTFA, but you also failed to read the fscking summary. The whole issue that sparked this thread is that scientist now thing it may well be possible to pass on their genes to a sibling through this new technique.

Also, your post doesn't take into consideration that, if there is in fact such a gene, it hasn't "taken care of itself" throughout the course of human history.

Before you go asserting that this fact is proof that there is no such gene, don't fail to realize that even before the technology that already exists for one of the pair to pass on the genes: Artificial Insemination, there was always the old fashioned practice of pretending you are straight and getting married and having children, and getting your snausages on the down low.

Re:Some scientific pursuits we should refrain from

[Hatta]

Would I make Ninja Turtles? Hell yes I would!

Well done.

[geekoid]

This is awesome.

Re:Some scientific pursuits we should refrain from

[Chrisq]

David Drake (and like a thousand other SF writers) beat you to it.

Don't tell me, he's half duck.

Re:Monstrous fetuses will prevent it

[geekoid]

NO their isn't, and So what if it does?

Re:what lesbians were tlaking about?

[geekoid]

wipe up when your done.

So much for Adoption

[cobrausn]

And here I thought eventual acceptance of gay couples might actually lead to a higher rate of adoption. Thanks, Science, for keeping our orphanages full of unwanted kids.

Abh Science

[jameskojiro]

Great, not they have one of the tools they will eventually use to take over our solar system....

You have not thought about this carefully.

[emil]

• This population is refreshed with every generation.
• Because of this, these behaviors were obviously involved in positive selection over a long period of time.
• That positive selection must have involved reproduction.
• That reproduction implies that these relationships where not exclusive.

There could be many other factors distorting natural human behavior in modern society - much more chemical exposure (BPA, pthalates, etc.), an unnatural social order (nuclear families, lack of tribal focus), and vastly increased isolation. It's a wonder that we're functional at all.

Re:Some scientific pursuits we should refrain from

[kehren77]

To me, this is one of them. Don't you agree? What about if you could make a human-animal hybrid, would you do that?

No, I don't agree.

And it would depend on the animal. Can you say mermaids?

another mathematical oddity

[circletimessquare]

the gay male couple can have only one kind of daughter genetically, and two kinds of sons genetically

X1Y1 + X2Y2 -> X1X2/ X1Y2/ X2Y1

but a gay female couple can have 4 kinds of daughters genetically

X1X2 + X3X4 -> X1X3/ X1X4/ X2X3/ X2X4

(excluding straight up clones, only considering recombination)

This explains Cartman

[nura78]

I hope this is included in some future South Park episode LOL.

Re:Some scientific pursuits we should refrain from

[Magada]

Both will happen at the same time, actually. It's just a matter of which attitude will prevail in which particular society. Frankly, I see the US sliding down towards the "goody-two-shoes-24/7-or-bust" mindset. The Netherlands, where people already live in street-level homes with no curtains on the windows, maybe not so much.

Re:Monstrous fetuses will prevent it

[Effexor]

a more practical but still bizarre way would be for Male A to mate with Female C until producing a daughter Female D, who would then mate with Male B.

You know you might be surprised how often the process you just described occurs.

Re:Some scientific pursuits we should refrain from

[Spykk]

So that's why they call them bunnies...

Re:Some scientific pursuits we should refrain from

[russotto]

Would you like it if both your parents were male, and incubated in a surrogate womb for hire?

Would you like it if all your friends knew that? Because by the time they are teenagers, that kind of information will be freely available by doing the equivalent of a "Google".

Would you like it if you were conceived in a test tube then artificially implanted into your mother's womb? The subject of international news at birth, so even pre-WWW, your friends almost certainly knew the basic outline? Because it didn't seem to bother Louise Joy Brown. Probably was a lot better for her than not having been born at all...

Re:Monstrous fetuses will prevent it

[russotto]

There's good reason to suspect, however, that monstrous human fetuses will happen if this research is applied to humans.

Monstrous human fetuses happen anyway. Reproduction's a bitch.

Let me understand...

[micromuncher]

So, eventually two dudes can produce offspring, but I'm not allowed to clone myself? WTH

Where's the fun?

[BLToday]

I always thought that women would get rid of men first, never thought that men would get rid of women first.

I don't look forward to a future without a home cooked meal. But at least, less DWTS on TV.

Name?

[Joolz50]

I hope they didn't call the mouse Luke.
Mouse1: I am your father
Mouse2: No, I am your father

Evil

[masmullin]

It is written in Levsquiticus 18:22. Mice shall not lay with mice as he would with a micette! SINN SIIIIINNNNNNNNN

These are Mice of the DEEEVVVVILLLLLLL !! the DEEEEEVVVVIIIILLLLLLLLLL

Squweh will punish you for your sins!

Pinky

[saunabad]

Are you pondering what i'm pondering?

Rather misleading

[Ouka]

This is a rather sensationalist report. I'm not faulting the submitter, I go back to the source. Let's step through it, shall we?

They are taking a male embryo and generating a stem cell line from it. They then have a way of selecting for cells that have lost their Y chromosome, creating an XO cell line.

Now at this point, I would not even consider the cell line to be male. Classically in humans, XO individuals are considered females with Turner's Syndrome. The source may have been a male cell line, but by removing the Y, especially at a stem-cell stage, you have created a female with a genetic disorder no matter if it was an XX->XO or XY->XO

But still, let us give them the benefit of the doubt and consider the cell line to be male.

They then take the XO cells and inject them into a fully female zygote. This creates a chimeric organism, or simply an organism that is comprised of cells from more than one individual. This can happen naturally, most notably in the case of when one parental twin absorbs the other in womb. Most individuals with this condition never realize their dual nature, but there have been some notable exceptions.

In this case, the resultant animal is female, with some "male" cells making up various bits and parts of the body. But overall, the form is female, not male.

Anyway, if the right sort of chimera is formed, within this chimeric XX/XO organism, *some* of the egg cells will be from the XO injected line. The cells that undergo the right meiosis will contain the right "half" of the equation and keep the X.

If that resultant egg is then fertilized normally by sperm, then yes, you have technically created a new organism that has it's DNA source from two males. One normal male, and one male *line* that was manipulated to being what is classically considered female, and hosted in a female body.

What it most certainly is NOT, is the collection of sperm cells from two males and generating offspring from it.

Oblig South Park quote

[zen-theorist]

Dude, thats so gay.

The way I see it

[cyclomedia]

Unless "prefers male / female" is just as simple as "prefers guitar / electronic music". Sure there's plenty of potential for nurture - if you grow up surrounded by guitar musicians, for example. On the other hand there are societal pressures, preferring guitar music is (arguably) the societal norm, as is preferring the opposite sex to same or either.

In terms of music I mostly prefer electronic, but there's plenty of guitar I like too, i guess I have an 80/20 split in that regard. And sexually I'm about a 95/5 split, with the 5% being the odd time I really would like some cock

My reckoning is that as society as a whole gets more relaxed, groovy, open and generally "who cares" about sexuality more and more people will feel absolutely no pressure either way and will openly call themselves bisexual. that is assuming that in a century or three those labels even apply any more

Same sex

[Stooshie]

I suppose this must have come about since the catholic church allowed male prostitutes to wear condoms.