Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Scientists Give Human Organs to Lamb

CowboyNeal posted more than 9 years ago | from the island-of-dr.-moreau dept.

Biotech 589

TK Interior writes "Myrtle Beach Online reports the existence of a lamb-human chimera-- a blend of two different species. Not only has a lamb been given a human liver and heart, but mice are sporting human brain cells. At what level is a chimera 'too' human? Where do you draw the line between human and animal? How will this affect evolution?"

cancel ×

589 comments

Damn it (1, Funny)

Cylix (55374) | more than 9 years ago | (#10930592)

I want my monkey man!

Re:Damn it (1, Offtopic)

oexeo (816786) | more than 9 years ago | (#10930611)

> I want my monkey man!

You could buy Koko [wikipedia.org] !

Re:Damn it (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10930620)

Shhhhh... My livelyhood as an American programmer in India depends on me acting like the monkey man.

Re:Damn it (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10930747)

Was it Bart who said this?

Ask and you shall receive (3, Funny)

kalel666 (587116) | more than 9 years ago | (#10930810)

http://www.ntk.net/media/developers.mpg

Seen them before (5, Funny)

oexeo (816786) | more than 9 years ago | (#10930593)

These things aren't new, they've been posting on /. for years!

Dupe (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10930596)

Dupe [slashdot.org]

I don't like it. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10930597)

This can only be ba-a-a-a-ad.

Re:I don't like it. (4, Funny)

goon america (536413) | more than 9 years ago | (#10930695)

The full quote is, "four legs good, two legs bad"

Some animals are more equal than others.

Too human? (5, Insightful)

Saven Marek (739395) | more than 9 years ago | (#10930598)

Too human is perhaps the point when, if, we get to making an animal that can perform as the midspecies link between two diseases?

A disease that affects sheep maybe can gestate over years in a flock of sheep and then suddenly because they have many human organs its affecting humans too. It opens a door of potentials not all of which are good

The nets biggest nude anime gallery's [sharkfire.net]

Re:Too human? (1)

excaliber19 (750206) | more than 9 years ago | (#10930610)

*sigh*

A decent comment, raped by spam. C'est la vie.

Re:Too human? (3, Informative)

RichDice (7079) | more than 9 years ago | (#10930685)

I think this is an interesting take on things, but I have to ask, does this mean that pigs and fowl -- as is -- are "too human"? Diseases from these jump over to the human populations in SE Asia, and then to the rest of the world, all the time. They're called this year's new strain of flu.

Cheers,
Richard

Re:Too human? (1)

Saven Marek (739395) | more than 9 years ago | (#10930715)

I don't know if too human as they are already what they are, and natural, vectors like those are the proof of what could happen. They are different to us but have those similarities which could affect us. Maybe there are some others that are already also able to cross pollinate with diseases as well as pigs and sheep.

But they are known!. We know there are needs to be careful with flu as one example. recently THE WHO has put out an alert on possible new flu pandemic coming from chickens for example. So its something that already happens and we have some if limited support to cope with.

But imagine humans are able to suddenly die from killer unknown disease given to us that would never even have been viable before, one right out of the blue. Mixing animals with us like this could lead, to that, scenario.

It all migt not happen but it is worth being wary, of.

The nets biggest nude anime gallery's [sharkfire.net]

lamb with a human liver is no more human... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10930600)

than a human with a pig heart is a pig. It's about DNA, not body parts.

Re:lamb with a human liver is no more human... (5, Insightful)

HalfFlat (121672) | more than 9 years ago | (#10930735)

No it's not about DNA.

Such thinking is behind all the current nonsense concerning abortion and stem cells research.

If you believe DNA is what determines human-ness, then all the cellular detritus that you leave scattered about every day is just as human as you are. You would have to claim that the snot you pick out of your nose has the same human rights as your mother. It's just daft.

What counts as human is not the DNA.

What constitutes human then? The sensible answer is my view (and others) is that it depends upon the thing's ability to be part of a society with other 'humans', and to have qualities such as empathy, self-consciousness and the like which are regarded as human qualities. Without those, a thing is no more human than its DNA might be.

I imagine that every time I sneeze, I eject more 'human' than there is in a 3-day old embryo -- by the DNA line of reasoning. It's just silly.

DNA is simply something that current humans have in common. Given how unimportant it really is, it seems quite possible in the future that there will be (human-constructed) things which are human in all the important senses, even if they don't have the same DNA as my toe-nail clippings.

Yay! (5, Funny)

Hamster Of Death (413544) | more than 9 years ago | (#10930601)

I welcome our 5 assed overlords!

Re:Yay! (1)

Flatline_hun (777281) | more than 9 years ago | (#10930690)

Where are the ", for one" and "new" parts?

Fristage Postage? (-1, Offtopic)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 9 years ago | (#10930603)

w00t

Not really a Chimera? (3, Insightful)

ilyanep (823855) | more than 9 years ago | (#10930604)

I wouldn't consider transplanting human organs into an animal a chimera. When they can put human DNA and make human organs grow naturally in an animal, then we'll have a chimera (and a little problem on our hands).

Re:Not really a Chimera? (2, Funny)

oexeo (816786) | more than 9 years ago | (#10930627)

I wouldn't consider transplanting human organs into an animal a chimera. When they can put human DNA and make human organs grow naturally in an animal, then we'll have a chimera (and a little problem on our hands).

Should I stop my Monkey-Man experiments then?

Re:Not really a Chimera? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10930689)

Did you RTFA? They are growing human tissues naturally in animals.

Um exact same article as a couple of days ago? (2, Interesting)

yderf (764618) | more than 9 years ago | (#10930607)

Did we see this article (by the same author from the Washington Post) in a /. post a couple of days ago? http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/2 0/2240209&tid=191&tid=14 [slashdot.org]

Yep. It's reprinted from the Post (1)

jfengel (409917) | more than 9 years ago | (#10930769)

And in fact, the article credits "Rick Weiss/The Washington Post".

One doesn't ordinarily expect to see major scientific news break in the Myrtle Beach Online. I'm sure it's a fine paper, but nearly every local newspaper gets its national news from a wire service like AP, or a "national" paper (Washington Post, New York Times, occasionally the LA Times or Chicago Tribune or a handful of others).

I grew up with the Washington Post as my daily newspaper, in which local news rarely makes the front page, or even the front section. Going away to college and reading the Richmond Times-Dispatch (a fine paper, actually, which occasionally breaks national news stories itself, but basically a local newspaper) was rather disorienting.

Advance Apology (1, Funny)

Waltan Hammett (694698) | more than 9 years ago | (#10930608)


Ba-a-a-a-a-d idea.

Too human? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10930614)

Or not quite [whitehouse.gov] human enough? It's a tough question.

The line? (1, Redundant)

Megane (129182) | more than 9 years ago | (#10930618)

When it says "Daa-aaa-aaa-dy!"

Re:The line? (1)

Deag (250823) | more than 9 years ago | (#10930676)

Ah! you should be shot for that.

Old news - but what if we had mice brains? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10930626)

C'mon ./ .. old old old news.

My pet humera and hudog are doing fine.

BARF!

ugh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10930628)

When I hear about human organs in lambs, I get a picture in my head I really don't want to have. Thanks a lot! :-(

The new Lamb... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10930629)

it really kicks the llama's ass!

Evolution (5, Insightful)

Claire-plus-plus (786407) | more than 9 years ago | (#10930631)

"How will this affect evolution?"

Many things effect evolution... Medical science has been effecting evolution for a very long time as people who would have died because of genetic illness have lived on through medical science. The human species has not had real natural selection for a long time because we do not die from genetic problems as often.

The only evolution humans are likely to undergo is a scary one. Stupid people are having more children than smart people, therefore people are going to get stupider. Maybe it's already happened

Re:Evolution (5, Insightful)

Ralph Yarro (704772) | more than 9 years ago | (#10930665)

The human species has not had real natural selection for a long time because we do not die from genetic problems as often.

Nonsense. You might as well claim that birds don't face natural selection because their parents feed them as babies instead of letting them starve or that that they don't face natural selection because their nests help keep them warm.

A bunch of people helping each other to survive is a product of natural selection, not its absence.

Part of our environment is now the existence of hospitals and scientists. Some people thrive in that environment who would die childless in other environments. Again, this is natural selction at work.

Re:Evolution (3, Insightful)

Claire-plus-plus (786407) | more than 9 years ago | (#10930710)

If you say that you are somewhat lacking in your sense of natural selection. Natural selection occurs when an individual dies before breeding or otherwise fails to breed, thus not handing on their genes. Among humans pretty much everyone lives long enough to breed, and thus genetics that do not select for survival are passed on. I am not saying that we should stop people with genetic diseases from breeding, just that by removing selective pressures from the species we might be stopping evolution.

Birds do indeed feed their young but if the parents believe that the young are incapable of surviving adequately they are thrown out of the nest to die in a lot of cases. People thriving because of hospitals is not natural selection, it's artificial - a kind of eugenics.

Re:Evolution (2, Informative)

Ralph Yarro (704772) | more than 9 years ago | (#10930759)

Natural selection occurs when an individual dies before breeding or otherwise fails to breed, thus not handing on their genes.

Pretty much right, to refine it slightly more, rather than "fails to breed" you mean "fails to produce viable offspring". Might as well drop the bit about the individual dying first, it adds nothing.

Among humans pretty much everyone lives long enough to breed, and thus genetics that do not select for survival are passed on.

I'm not sure what proportion of the population fails to breed. I'm not convinced it's as insignificant as you think, especially once you factor in birth control and cuckolding. Do you have statistics? Given a hiugh survival rate, factors like ability to judge the fidelity of a spouse become major evolutionary factors. With birth control a desire to have children becomes more significant than a desire to have sex as well. Evolutionary factors still apply.

Birds do indeed feed their young but if the parents believe that the young are incapable of surviving adequately they are thrown out of the nest to die in a lot of cases. People thriving because of hospitals is not natural selection, it's artificial - a kind of eugenics.

Explain to me your theory under which the behaviour of the birds in your example arises from natural selection and the behaviour of the humans doesn't.

Re:Evolution (1)

Claire-plus-plus (786407) | more than 9 years ago | (#10930783)

I didn't say the behavious of birds didn't arise from evolution, only that it doesn't effect evolution. That is, once the birds have no medical science to keep them alive when their body tells them they should be dead.

Re:Evolution (3, Informative)

Ralph Yarro (704772) | more than 9 years ago | (#10930805)

I didn't say the behavious of birds didn't arise from evolution, only that it doesn't effect evolution.

OF COURSE it affects evolution. It's part of the environment that the chicks are born into.

Scenario as outlined so far: Birds lay eggs. Eggs hatch. Parents feed offspring. Parents eject less viable offspring, enhancing the food and other resources devoted to the more viable offspring, and thus enhancing their chances of survival.

How does can you say that this doesn't affect evolution? By your standards the parent birds are interfering in the process.

Re:Evolution (1)

Bad Ad (729117) | more than 9 years ago | (#10930668)

shame ive got no mod points, ive been arguing that we have stopped evolving (at least on a postive way) for a while. natural selection might be unfortunate for those who dont survive, but we wouldnt be where we are today if some of our ancestors didnt die to put us on this path.

Re:Evolution (1)

mailtomomo (776971) | more than 9 years ago | (#10930727)

we have stopped evolving (at least on a postive way)
evolution cannot be stopped and doesn't have a way.

Re:Evolution (1)

Donny Smith (567043) | more than 9 years ago | (#10930702)

>The human species has not had real natural selection for a long time because we do not die from genetic problems as often.

Wasn't that Hitler's reason for eliminating the disabled/ill?

>Stupid people are having more children than smart people, therefore people are going to get stupider.

You can't generalize like that - some smart (and/or rich) people have a bunch of kids. But at least they provide for them, whereas taxpayers have to pay up for "breeders" (weird term, saw it somewhere on the Net) who have more kids than they can afford.
I don't know, though, how ethical would it be to limit reproduction based on economic status (or IQ level) of potential parents.

Personally I'm only upset about the unjust taxation, but taxation has never been just anyway.

In couple of years we should be able to artificially enhance IQ in humans, so overall we should improve.
But with continous advancement of robotics and AI, I wonder if 15 years later human reproduction will make sense as having kids could become not economically viable.

Re:Evolution (1)

Claire-plus-plus (786407) | more than 9 years ago | (#10930742)

Don't get me wrong please, I never have or will advocate removal of rights from anyone based on their genetics or upbringing. Everyone deserves the same rights as everyone else.

Re:Evolution (3, Interesting)

phizzits (800857) | more than 9 years ago | (#10930761)

So true. Diseases like diabetes, which were once fatal, are now affecting more and more people just because we can treat it. And diabetes seems to be a somewhat dominant gene or set of genes, so in a couple hundred years we could all be carrying around insulin pumps and buying it at the local pharmacy in the Insulin isle. Many such diseases and deformities exist. And with comsetic surgery, teeth straightening, and laser eye surgery getting cheaper all too fast, we can see an end to sexual discrimination as well. It's ironic, however, that the idea of genetic engineering has come around the time of our genetic demise.

Evolution isn't real (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10930632)

Well, since evolution isnt real. And we dont come from animals. It wont be possibled to do any of this new fangled gene splicing stuff.

So I don't see the religious right having any problems with this. Since it won't work. It's impossible for nature to manipulate genes. Mutations dont happen. And you know what, fuck it, there NO SUCH THING AS GENES!

Oh yeah, and gays can't marry.

Duh (4, Insightful)

CGP314 (672613) | more than 9 years ago | (#10930633)

How will this affect evolution?

Not at all since the reproductive cells are not affected.


-Colin [colingregorypalmer.net]

Re:Duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10930692)

Did you even RTFA? If human stem cells are introduced early enough in gestation, they are affected.

Evolution (2, Interesting)

Dancin_Santa (265275) | more than 9 years ago | (#10930637)

First of all, no species has ever been shown to evolve into another species. No scientific experiment has ever proved this.

But back to the topic at hand, I don't think we have anything to fear from inserting human genes into non-human subjects. As long as the resulting creatures are kept isolated from the general population of creatures, such a "mutation" is highly unlikely to infect the general population with abnormal genes.

But then again, this all throws in the trash the whole idea of genetic engineering which is to develop cures for our current problems using the existing genetic materials which may be helpful. The development of insulin-building cells is a direct result of genetic engineering. So too are the "skin farms" which generate sheets of usable skin for burn victims.

The main problem is in how to decide to whom these benefits should go. Given unlimited supplies, anyone who had need should get them, but with current limited supply, it is difficult to decide who ought to be eligible for these.

Should the gay guy with AIDS be allowed to take advantage of these skin cells? Or should it go to the cancer patient who is losing skin like crazy as he quickly descends down the path of mortality? Should we only give these benefits to the ones who are likely to be healthy?

The problem is not the technology. We can develop greater technology. The problem is a philosophical one, because we can't offer these advances to everyone. We must decide who is important and who is not..

A tough choice, to say the least.

Re:Evolution (1)

g0hare (565322) | more than 9 years ago | (#10930673)

Americans are important. Rich Americans are the most important. See how easy that was?

Re:Evolution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10930682)

First of all, no species has ever been shown to evolve into another species. No scientific experiment has ever proved this.

But the evidence for it having happened, given the evidence for the interrelatedness of all existing species, ought to be enough to pass the burden of proof for all but those who have closed their minds to this possibility by assuming an incompatible truth.

Re:Evolution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10930746)

What evidence? There is none. As for the interrelatedness of all existing species that is to be expected. We are all living on the same planet and made from the same source materials. I'm surprised that evolution seems to be the one field where slashdotters are willing to forgive the lack of reproducible experiments to prove the hypothesis. What happened to scientific method?

Re:Evolution (1)

oexeo (816786) | more than 9 years ago | (#10930686)

> no species has ever been shown to evolve into another species.

Absolutely, that whole "evolution" thing, WTF is that about.

Re:Evolution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10930712)

What are you retarded?

"First of all, no species has ever been shown to evolve into another species. No scientific experiment has ever proved this."

What does this mean? What is a new species? An animal that looks vastly different ? An animal that cannot reproduce with other animals from same parental ancestors?

What the fuck does species mean? According to wikipedia and other sources species seems to have multiple meanings. So please clarify whqat you mean.

Also, for an animal to be so vastly different that they cannot interbreed IT TAKES THOUSANDS OF GENERATIONS BEING SUBJECTED TO DIVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS. This is impossible to do with bacteria even. However bacterial and viral evolution has been shown. Not sure about the interbreeding cause guess what .. bacteria doesn't fuck, it divides instead (and they do have the capability of cross species gene transfer anyway). So to document this evolution in animals you'd need thousands of years. Since we arent allowed to look at fossils. Oh yeah in a thousand years the whacko religionists will be running around claiming that records were tainted etc.

Even humans who were kept apart over a hundred thousand years ago are capable of interbre3eding. So clearly for the interbreeding capability to be lost you would need thousands of generations.

Re:Evolution (1)

Donny Smith (567043) | more than 9 years ago | (#10930730)

> As long as the resulting creatures are kept isolated from the general population of creatures, such a "mutation" is highly unlikely to infect the general population with abnormal genes.

That's the whole problem - they said that about genetically modified corps and couple years later they've discovered that isolation is impossible.

>The problem is a philosophical one, because we can't offer these advances to everyone. We must decide who is important and who is not.

That decision should not be made (everone is important), but it will be - and that is the problem.

Re:Evolution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10930744)

We must decide who is important and who is not..

Why? Why not make it purely random. Let God decide who's important. After all you sound like a creationist, so you should have any problem with "let God decide" .. that is until a black or gay guy gets it and people get pissed off.

Re:Evolution (1)

davesag (140186) | more than 9 years ago | (#10930802)

First of all, no species has ever been shown to evolve into another species. No scientific experiment has ever proved this.

no scientific experiment ever proved anything. they are set up to disprove theories. nothing has ever disproved the theory of evolution is what you are trying to say I think.

The line between species (1)

AtlanticCarbon (760109) | more than 9 years ago | (#10930642)

Isn't the line between species whether they can reproduce? And I mean _successfully_ reproduce. ;)

Re:The line between species (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10930775)

Almost right. The line is when the reproduced specimen can also reproduce. Mules cannot reproduce, because donkeys and horses are different species.

How will this affect evolution? (1)

Donny Smith (567043) | more than 9 years ago | (#10930644)

How will this affect evolution???

Let me ask you this - how will this affect OUTSOURCING?

Gives a whole new meaning to "code monkey"....

Re:How will this affect evolution? (1)

oexeo (816786) | more than 9 years ago | (#10930791)

> Gives a whole new meaning to "code monkey"....

As the old proverb goes:

Given half a dozen monkeys with half a dozen computers, they'll eventually (about a week) code the entire Longhorn OS.

too human (4, Funny)

MadFarmAnimalz (460972) | more than 9 years ago | (#10930651)

At what level is a chimera 'too' human?

Slashdotter: ...?
Goat: Not tonight honey, I have a headache.

Goat Sheep (5, Informative)

CGP314 (672613) | more than 9 years ago | (#10930656)

In science, an animal is a chimera [wikipedia.org] if the cells throughout the animal are from two different animals. This is accomplished by mixing the zygotes (see the geep [wikipedia.org] ). You don't get a chimera through organ transplant.


-Colin [colingregorypalmer.net]

Evolution (1)

pollock (453937) | more than 9 years ago | (#10930658)

"How will this affect evolution?"

Assuming that you meant to say "effect", unless you mix our DNA this will have absolutely no effect on evolution.

You aren't talking about the conscious subjective aspect of an emotion considered apart from bodily changes [m-w.com] by any chance, are you?

Re:Evolution (1)

Xshare (762241) | more than 9 years ago | (#10930688)

Umm. No. He didn't ask what effect (noun) it had, but rather, how it would affect (verb) evolution.

Re:Evolution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10930696)

It's unlikely he meant to say "effect" since in this sense "affect" is the correct word. If you're going to correct people, at least get it right yourself. Idiot!

Re:Evolution (1)

Dr. Evil (3501) | more than 9 years ago | (#10930697)

Not at all. Valuable time which could have been spent passing our genetic information to future generations has been wasted.

Damn you Slashdot!

PLEASE GET OFF THE INTERNET (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10930718)

You Moron.

Re:Evolution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10930745)

mod the parent down

Re:Evolution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10930794)

He probably meant affect, as in "To act upon; to produce an effect or change upon." From the 1913 Webster's...

How will this affect evolution? (1)

Lu Xun (615093) | more than 9 years ago | (#10930660)

Probably no differently than our efforts are already having an effect. Unless a human-enhanced animal gets out and breeds in captivity, we won't see any new species adaptations except for those that we ourselves design. That said, what about going the other way? Would night-shift workers want to get implanted with bat ears so they could communte in the dark?

I think the ability to spray my scent on something(one) would come in handy during arguments.
"Yea well you're stupid!"
Psssssssst
"Yuck! I concede!"

You don't draw the line... (2, Insightful)

lxt (724570) | more than 9 years ago | (#10930672)

...because there is no line to draw. "Animal" simply means "A multicellular organism of the kingdom Animalia" - Animal is a classification, and humans are part of the Animalia kingdom. Thus, humans are animals.

Lambs are animals.
Humans are animals.
Simple as that. Humans are not some special exemption - they are animals, and so to say "when do you draw the line between humans and animals" is just plain wrong. Go take a basic high school Biology course.

Perhaps what was meant to be said was "species" - a species is defined as a group of related organisms capable of interbreeding. Although humans could technically breed with sheep (and living near Wales, I should know...), the offspring would be sterile...

Re:You don't draw the line... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10930721)

I wasn't referring to a difference between humans and animals in a biological sense, but in a moral sense (when do they deserve rights equal to other humans?).

silence those lambs, (1)

dankelley (573611) | more than 9 years ago | (#10930675)

please.

When the animal says.... (1)

Alpha27 (211269) | more than 9 years ago | (#10930678)

"So baby, what are you doing tonight? baaaaaaaaaah

Re:When the animal says.... (1)

Zorilla (791636) | more than 9 years ago | (#10930717)

Why does that remind me of American McGee?

WOW (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10930684)

Article submitter used affect properly!!

/me dies from surprise

Re:WOW (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10930736)

Indeed, it was used to good effect.

Evolution isn't real. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10930687)

So my guess is it won't be affected. There is nothing in the universe that spontaneously organizes and orders itself. Entropy and chaos are the default states. True, planets and stars form by organizing themselves. But those examples are ruled by a guiding force: gravity. If evolution were real it too would have to have a guiding force behind it: God. As such, evolution as put forward today is not and cannot be real. Evolution as a tool used by an intelligent designer most certainly can be real.

Re:Evolution isn't real. (1)

g0hare (565322) | more than 9 years ago | (#10930699)

that's the silliest thing I've heard today, thanks for making my morning brighter!

Re:Evolution isn't real. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10930750)

> But those examples are ruled by a guiding force: gravity. If
> evolution were real it too would have to have a guiding force
> behind it: God.

Hence, gravity must also be intelligent.

Re:Evolution isn't real. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10930778)

Evolution as a tool used by an intelligent designer most certainly can be real.

Actually, you're the one who sounds like a tool.

Voltaire? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10930698)

Many turn to the Bible's repeated invocation that animals should multiply "after their kind" as evidence that such experiments are wrong.

I think it was Voltaire that said, "Mankind shall not be free until the last priest is strangled with the entrails of the last king."

why? (2, Funny)

MeatBlast (834728) | more than 9 years ago | (#10930700)

I personally wish they wouldn't do things like this. One mix-up and we could have an all powerful, super smart bear on our hands. Just leave the dumb animals alone.

Re:why? (2, Funny)

Zorilla (791636) | more than 9 years ago | (#10930757)

Don't worry, there's a special park [campjellystone.com] set up for just this kind of thing.

Re:why? (1)

MeatBlast (834728) | more than 9 years ago | (#10930796)

And they even have space for humans that we can't stand (the ranger)!

Evolution. (1)

headkase (533448) | more than 9 years ago | (#10930714)

How will it affect Evolution? It won't at all, Evolution is a process built into the Universe as I see it. We're always evolving but the selection pressure's are always shifting. The moment a doctor cures a disease in a person is the instant that that selection pressure was removed from that individuals small contribution to natural evolution. Instead it confer's a trait that is defined by how much an individual has access to quality health care as a new societal selection pressure.


Or I could just be talking out of my butt.
:) ;)

This will not in any way affect evolution. (1)

JonLatane (750195) | more than 9 years ago | (#10930716)

"How will this affect evolution?"

Okay, first, let's take what a chimera is: it's an organism with more than one genome, caused by the presence of tissue from another organism. In fact, human chimeras are more common than you might imagine: when fraternal twins develop in the womb, one may fail to develop and be "absorbed" into the other's tissue. So that baby would grow up with a big chunk of tissue in his body that is his brother.

Thus, this cannot affect evolution at all; the organism that has the gametes will pass on its genes.

Well, unless of course they graft human genitalea onto a sheep. But I think they have limits, or at least decency.

Abortion Opponents (0, Flamebait)

Phoinix (666047) | more than 9 years ago | (#10930719)

would be the best people to know especially that they are mysteriously able to pin-point the time when a fetus is "alive" and has his/her own "soul".

The next thing you know is that they are passing a legistlation to prevent "lamb abortions"!

Imagine... (2, Funny)

DrMindWarp (663427) | more than 9 years ago | (#10930722)

...a biowolf cluster of those.

You know lambs, wolves... oh, just forget it.

Chairdog! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10930723)

nt

Oryx and Crake (1)

navegan (775416) | more than 9 years ago | (#10930724)

Canadian author Margaret Atwood recently wrote the futuristic tale Oryx and Crake, in which the chimera was a "pigoon". It's a good read for a fictional look at chimeras. (If I remember correctly, the pigoon ended up being very high-thinking - possibly it was a chimera because it had a human brain?)

That lamb gave its liver for my sins (2, Funny)

orthogonal (588627) | more than 9 years ago | (#10930725)

Lends a whole new meaning to the Fundies' proselytizing question, "are you washed in the blood of the Lamb? [accsoft.com.au] ", doesn't it?

"Yes, that lamb really did die for my sins, in this case, donating its liver to redeem the rampant alcoholism I developed trying to wrap my head around why you Fundies voted for four more years of Bush."

People needing those organs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10930726)

This really seems like a waste to me. There are people waiting in long lines for those organs to be donated to save their live, and they've just been preempted by a lamb. The level some scientists will go to in order to NOT save a human life should sicken every one of us.

Ah-Ha! That explains it! (1)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 9 years ago | (#10930740)

Some of our staff have gotten transplanted monkey organs. They jack off furiously all day and throw feces at one another during staff meeting.

Human brain cells make mice dumber (2, Funny)

filterchild (834960) | more than 9 years ago | (#10930751)

Why do mice need human brain cells?
Aren't they the smartest species on Earth (followed by dolphins)?

How will this affect evolution? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10930754)

I predict that domesticated animals will start to develop zippers for easy access to their juicy juicy organs.

no-fly zone (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 9 years ago | (#10930770)

Heeellllpp mmeeee! HHHEEEELLLLLPP MMMEEEEEE!!! [imdb.com]

It would be funny if life wasn't so sacred.

Old news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10930771)

Dr. Moreau did this about 40 years ago. It was a heck of an island resort as I recall.

Only Objection (1, Insightful)

boatboy (549643) | more than 9 years ago | (#10930773)

As a conservative Christian, I think the objection on the grounds animals should "multiply according to their kind" is weak depending on the methods used to create these chimeras. Obviously combining human gametes with animals' would be beastiality, which most people would still object to. But using adult stem cells or transplantation to do this isn't objectionable in my opinion.

The only real problem I see is illustrated in the following quote: If two such chimeras - say, mice - were to mate, a human embryo might form, trapped in a mouse.
Not everyone agrees that this would be a terrible result.
"What would be so dreadful?" asked Ann McLaren, a renowned developmental biologist at the University of Cambridge in England. After all, she said, no human embryo could develop successfully in a mouse womb. It would simply die, she told the academy.


Such a callous disregard for human life underscores the objection many people have to things such as embryonic stem cell research and abortion. This person obviously believes the unborn child is "alive"- otherwise it could not logically die. However, she does not care that it dies because of her irresponsible actions.

I think the medical profession above anybody has a responsibility to preserve life- even when it is just begining. In cases where there is a conflict between preserving two lives (as in embryonic stem cell research), the professional should look for alternatives- such as cord-harvested stem cells- that do not involve killing one human to preserve another.

That said, conservatives need to be open to those practices that, though unorthodox, have potential to preserve life without taking it.

Wrong reseach direction... (1)

Faeton (522316) | more than 9 years ago | (#10930781)

Somehow I think that sheep and pigs can do just fine without human parts. What I would be highly interested in is having animal parts in humans. It's a known fact that human organs are in short supply, and if we can "grow" them from animals, that would substantially increase the number available to people around the world.

Of course, then you would have to worry about cross-species dieases (AIDS is a known one) and the social stigma of such a transplant.

Lamb asks for.. (1)

Nikkodemus (763778) | more than 9 years ago | (#10930798)

its 1st meal after the operation, a kebab and a pint of Guinness.

Virus Exposure (1)

Puls4r (724907) | more than 9 years ago | (#10930806)

One of the primary dangers in this is increasing the contact of sheep viruses with human organs.

That is the primary way of allowing a virus to adapt and cross-species jump.

How will this affect evolution? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10930811)

I don't believe in evolution, you insensitive clod!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...