------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 10:31pm Dec 7, 1997 ET (#1000 of 1001)
Noel, I am sorry I took so long in getting back to the mutation question, but I have been busy with other things, and I decided to wait and try to do it right. I was not particularly impressed with the authority and reliability of the net sources you mentioned, and I decided to try to find one that did impress me. It took a while to find one, but I believe that
http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~bethmont/mutdes.html
is an source of information that I can recommend. Specifically, it is a lecture by Beth A. Montelone, Division of Biology, Kansas State University from one of her courses in Biology. It includes topics in: Definitions and mutation rates, Types of Mutations, Origins of Spontaneous Mutation, Mutagens, DNA Repair Systems and Checkpoints. I believe you will agree that Dr. Montelone is a excellent source of reliable information.
Perhaps there is a problem with the definition of "mutation." Your statement, "We know how to cause mutations," indicates to me that your references to mutations may refer mainly to induced mutation. But actually, the term "mutation" can be used to describe any change in the genetic material. It is in this sense that I mean it. There are basically two types of mutations: spontaneous and induced. When I speak of mutation as the means of providing genetic variation, I am speaking of spontaneous mutation or naturally occurring induced mutation, such as from naturally occuring cosmic radiation. (That gross, harmful, mutations can be induced with specific radiation bombardment is really beside the point. It is not this type of mutations that caused the genetic variations that provides the mechanism for evolutionary branches.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 10:39pm Dec 7, 1997 ET (#1001 of 1001)
Noel Yap: In order for natural selection to occur, their must be differences among the species. How did this difference come about?
You seem to be saying that variations can exist, but in order for the variations to exist, a rich gene pool must exist first. Actually, the evidence from the fossil record is that the various branches of evolution occurred due to isolation. For example, differences between the old world monkeys and new world monkeys are due to the continental split between the old and the new worlds. But there are other ways that isolation of specific members of a species have occurred and resulted in diverging branches. I am very impressed with work done by Vincent Sarich and Allan Wilson. Basically, Sarich and Wilson used blood protein sequencing, to establish relative differences among selected existing species. Specifically, they found--surprise--that the chimpanze is our nearest relative among the apes, with the gorilla a close second. More important was their discovery that man, the apes, the old world monkeys and the new world monkeys all have approximately the same number of differences in blood serum albumin with respect to carnivores. Assuming that the primates have a common ancestry since the split with carnivores, it is clear that overall changes to the genetic material (mutations) of the various branches must tend to occur at a constant rate.
Noel Yap: Mutation is not the answer. There is too much evidence against it, and, there is supporting evidence for other genetic operators (ie crossover and gene sequence insertion.)
The evidence from Sarich and Wilson is that spontaneous (or naturally occurring) mutations occurs as a constant rate in organisms. Not all of these spontaneous, or naturally occurring, mutations are harmful. Whether useful or harmful, mutations tend to be recessive. In most cases, they may tend to remain recessive, but in cases of isolation of a few members, in some cases, perhaps due to close breeding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 10:49pm Dec 7, 1997 ET (#1002 of 1002)
they tend to show up and eventually become the dominant form, resulting in diversion, and the forming of new species. Continuous occurance of mutations eventually results in a rich gene pool from which natural selection can operate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom A - 11:23pm Dec 7, 1997 ET (#1003 of 1004)
Cliff Beall: Thanks for expanding quite well on what I was implying.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 11:53pm Dec 7, 1997 ET (#1004 of 1004)
Philip, in answer to your question: with ease. No problem. First, "science" and "life science" are not the same thing. I did not say "life science," I said "science." Incidentally, although it is true that most scientist do not believe in God, approximately 40% do. Does that make them bad scientist? Well, perhaps if their field is evolutionary paleoantropology. But many science fields do not conflict with a belief in creation, including some of the life sciences. In general, there is little, if any, conflict with a medical doctor believing in God. Thus, even in the life sciences, much of the existing scientific knowledge is typically accepted by men of faith. You can call a belief system with no evidence to support it as irrational, if you wish. I call it a belief system. By the way, what evidence do you have for your belief system?
If you ask me that question, I will answer: "I don't know." ;-)
Tom A, it is true that "Creationists have a big problem with a God utilizing biological evolution as His means of creating." Typically, they just don't believe it. I disagree with them on that issue, but I often find much with which to agree with them, otherwise. I agree with you on some issues, and on some issues I don't. I am not sure I see much of a difference.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fosberg - 08:19am Dec 8, 1997 ET (#1005 of 1011)
Packing material, Don't Eat!
I think it should be pointed out that a belief in a creator is not in any way at issue with evolution.
The conflict; Creationism vs. Evolution comes from a belief that Genesis is the "literal, breathed word of God." If you believe that the text of Genesis is exact in language and interpretation from any age and by definition, and the only aceptable explanation for life's diversity then I can see where you would have a problem with evolution.
Many people do not see a conflict, primarily because they believe that the Bible is a work of man, possibly, or even probably, inspired by a creator, but still written by and for humans.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sohail Zia - 02:33pm Dec 8, 1997 ET (#1006 of 1011)
With all the intelligence in Nature, I can not deny my Creator; the Source
Noel Yap - 07:38am Nov 18, 1997 ET (#814) Cliff Beall: Can men of faith say that God used evolution as the mechanism to cause man to come into existence May be, may be not, In actual for the men of faith (e.g. Muslims) when science contradicts with a 'clear statement of their faith', they remain confident that science will eventually reach the conclusion of concord to their belief. As an indirect example, as Rafi M. has indicated in his recent message, that Birth of Prophet Jesus indicated by Koran was due to an Order of Creator and not due to a fertilization caused by a human male. So when cloning was announced Muslims thought, that when modern man can cause, to produce a child without second parent then why not for Creator. Second when scientists thought, that in future they may produce pre-historic animals (e.g. dinosaurs) from the DNA preserved in fossils (in rocks), again a thought was generated that if man can do this, then why does not they believe, that Creator shall give us a second life.
In fact the statement of Koran for the first man seems to be a direct creation and not through the process of evolution, whereas for the spreading of animals the statement as I remember seems to have some indications for the cross between basic species to produce different animals which is perhaps part of the process of evolution caused by Creator. I may admit that the discussion I am going through is not my specialization, as I have studied Electronics in particular during my graduation in the early 80s, nor do I say that I represent any group of any faith; just enjoying the opportunity to think freely before my death.
Mike Dawson - 11:46am Nov 19, 1997 ET (#819) Cloning is yet another example of how mankind will further procreate and pollute this beautiful plant ..............Now thats off my chest ....
I hope you are at ease now.
<Previous messages Sohail Zia 12/1/97 11:00am &
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sohail Zia - 02:40pm Dec 8, 1997 ET (#1007 of 1011)
With all the intelligence in Nature, I can not deny my Creator; the Source
Cliff Beall - 11:47pm Nov 19, 1997 ET (#821 of 822) Noel, .............But if you want examples of religious people, who believe in a personal God, who object strenuously to evolution, but who otherwise readily accept the benefits of science, look no further that this board. Well, is it disturbing for you, or you like it, or you think it as an hypocritical act. I do not mind you saying it, so you too do not mind me please. But how can you claim that I believe in a personal god of your perception for me and others; when we have not sit together, and have not discussed it, over a cup of coffee. Does my second line 'With all the intelligence in Nature, I can not deny my Creator; the Source' gives you such a perception of personal god, for me.
<Previous message Sohail Zia 12/8/97 2:33pm >
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Carey - 04:00pm Dec 8, 1997 ET (#1008 of 1011)
Cliff; Although your phrasing is ambiguous, you seem to suggest that creationists ( scientists---''with the exception of evolution '' ) are ''as modern in their approach to science---as anybody ''. Let's make a distinction between creationists and ''men of faith''. About 2% of scientists are creationists I believe. they are accorded little respect from mainstream scientists and their literature is not published in peer reviewed scientific journals. they have contributed little to modern science. Idont think any has ever won a Nobel Prize, although over 100 winners have characterized creationism as pseudoscience. Molecular and cellular biology, biochemistry, biophysics, virology, genetics, microbiology, immunology, botany, physiology, ethology, zoology,anthropology, ecology, neurosciences and a host of others are largely premised on the fact of evolution. 70% of biologists do not believe in God. 78% of physicists and astronomers do not believe in God. If by '' men of faith'' you meant religious scientific evolutionists we are in much closer agreement. However, an article in '' The Humanist '' magazine some time ago demonstrated that most of the truly superior scientists in their respective fields are unbelievers. All other things being equal, I think you would choose a physician who accepted evolution as opposed to a creationist. Cliff, I think you also know that the burden of proof rests with believers rather than those of us who have an absence of belief in God.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Carey - 04:19pm Dec 8, 1997 ET (#1009 of 1011)
In my estimation, science has proven the various religions wrong in hundreds if not thousands of cases . Can anybody quote an instance in which religion has conclusively disproven science?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom A - 06:30pm Dec 8, 1997 ET (#1010 of 1011)
Why don't all you die hard artsie-religious bunch take a hike. Cloning is pure science. Nothing more.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Moorhead - 07:29pm Dec 8, 1997 ET (#1011 of 1011)
Philip Carey -
The empty tomb.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 12:46am Dec 9, 1997 ET (#1012 of 1015)
D. A. Leffler: This is exactly how scientific theories are created. I think the best any scientist can ever hope to with any theory is disprove it; not prove it to be fact. The method of disproving a theory is in presenting repeatable, observable data that irrevocably contradicts what the theory predicts.
D. A., I think you meant "fail to disprove it." I would expect that no scientist wants his theories to be disproved. Otherwise, I think your slant on the subject is somewhat backwards. While a theory does not require proof, it does have a burden of evidence. For a theory to be credible, it must have substantial evidence in it's favor. To disprove a theory requires only one counter-example. (This does not mean that a theory can not be "fixed." But if in fixing it, if it loses the "substantial evidence," it is no longer credible.)
Kurt Schoedel: I think a world government is the worst idea. A world government means a world beaurocracy which would ultimately stifle all progress. The reason why free-market system works better than socialism is because of competition. Governments are a form of monopoly. We don't need any more monopoly in our lives.
Kurt, I think a world government would require less bureaucracy than all the present combined existing governments. I think it can be argued that present competition between governments is unhealthy. Healthy competition occurs between individuals and corporations. This healthy competition need not, and would not change. I think a world government, organized on democratic principles, would be healthy. Therefore, I think the very best thing we could do would be to immediately offer to accept Canada and Mexico, each divided into an appropriate number of states, into the union. After we get that done, we could go after Africa and South America. With that working, we could go after Asia. And finally, unfortunately, we would have to accept the cantankerous Europeans:-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 12:48am Dec 9, 1997 ET (#1013 of 1015)
Keith Fosberg: I think it should be pointed out that a belief in a creator is not in any way at issue with evolution.
I think that most people who believe in creation also believe in the observable evolution "within species." However, when I refer to evolution generally, I am referring to it as a replacement for creation. In this sense, I believe it is an issue with most people.
Keith Fosberg: Many people do not see a conflict, primarily because they believe that the Bible is a work of man, possibly, or even probably, inspired by a creator, but still written by and for humans.
As an agnostic, that quite close to my view. In order for me to accept it, the "or even probably" would have to be omitted. Otherwise, it is fine. I accept the "possibly" of a creator.
Sohail Zia: But if you want examples of religious people, who believe in a personal God, who object strenuously to evolution, but who otherwise readily accept the benefits of science, look no further that this board. Well, is it disturbing for you, or you like it, or you think it as an hypocritical act.
I try not to be judgmental of other people. Sometimes, however, I do indulge in overstatement to make a point. Perhaps, this is an example, although I think the statement is probably close enough to the truth. No, this is not disturbing to me. As to whether I like it or not, it is more that I find it interesting. And no, I do not think it is hypocritical in the least. I accept that you are very sincere in your beliefs.
To all participants on this board:
We wish to remind you that off-topic messages will be deleted. Those posts are against the rules which you read and agreed to follow when joining our community.
There is a legitimate theological component to scientific issues like cloning, where mankind is accused by some of "playing God," but this board wasn't intended to be a discussion of pure theology.
Please make every effort to keep your posts on-topic .
We appreciate your contribution to the community here and welcome your assistance in maintaining a high-quality environment for discussion.
Thank you,
CNN Interactive Community
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 12:51am Dec 9, 1997 ET (#1014 of 1015)
Philip Carey: About 2% of scientists are creationists I believe. they are accorded little respect from mainstream scientists and their literature is not published in peer reviewed scientific journals.
I have previously noted that "scientific creation," as an alternative to evolution, is not scientific. Perhaps, we should make a distinction between "creationists" and people who believe in a God who created the universe. It is my understanding that 40% of "mainstream scientists" believe in God. I suspect that most of those believe in the Genesis account, or it's equivalent, in one form or another.
Philip Carey: Idont think any has ever won a Nobel Prize, although over 100 winners have characterized creationism as pseudoscience.
If you are referring to "scientific creationist," I am sure you are correct.
Philip Carey: However, an article in '' The Humanist '' magazine some time ago demonstrated that most of the truly superior scientists in their respective fields are unbelievers.
I am sure they argued the case to your satisfaction.
Philip Carey: All other things being equal, I think you would choose a physician who accepted evolution as opposed to a creationist.
I would be more concerned with the knowledge and skill of the physician than any theological belief system he, or she, might hold.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 12:52am Dec 9, 1997 ET (#1015 of 1015)
Philip Carey: Cliff, I think you also know that the burden of proof rests with believers rather than those of us who have an absence of belief in God.
Philip, it isn't what you don't believe that is at issue, it is what you do believe. For example, if you believe that people who accept the Genesis account of creation are irrational, you have the burden of proof. Also, if you believe that life on this planet originated by an accidental arrangement of inanimate molecules in combination with radiation, or whatever, you have the burden of proof.
To restate and clarify my position, I submit that there is abundant fossil evidence that simpler forms of life evolved into complex forms. I, therefore, believe in evolution. But, although I tend to believe that life on this planet probably arose in an evolutionary fashion, I freely admit that there is absolutely no evidence that life originated by an accidental arrangement of inanimate molecules that then somehow became capable of reproduction. If you know something I don't know, please illuminate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fosberg - 10:08am Dec 9, 1997 ET (#1016 of 1032)
Packing material, Don't Eat!
To the CNN moderator;
The issue of Creationism vs. Evolution is very much on topic here as "cloning" or more precisely, the development of advanced genectic technologies, will have a profound effect on the future evolution of our species.
Since neither Evolution nor Creationism are "empirically" proven, the discussion of what, if any, changes man should impose on his makeup is dramatically effected by our beliefs and knowledge about our origin and development.
Thank you for this forum.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom A - 11:03am Dec 9, 1997 ET (#1017 of 1032)
CNN Moderator: Are you going to let Keith Fosberg tell you what to do? Creationist talk is similar to a flat earth discussion. Please be more diligent as to what gets posted. Since the theory of evolution involves more direct subjects related to cloning, please delete all religious discussion. This is not a religious forum. Thank you.
CNN Staff Note:
It's a thin line that we walk on here. Discussion of ethics is certainly a legitimate issue related to cloning. One component of ethics in this matter is the spiritual one.
When the religion vs. science debate sticks to discussing why cloning is or is not a ethical thing to do, it can stay. But when the discussion becomes more general, i.e. evolution vs. creationism with no reference or tie-in to the issues surrounding human cloning, it will be subject to deletion.
There is no one policy which will please everyone, but we hope most will at least find it acceptable. Our original staff note, not directed at anyone in particular, was just a request to get back to issues directly tied in with cloning. If those discussing religion and ethics tie it in with cloning, fine; if not, it may go.
Unfortunately, this "line" can seem somewhat arbitrary at times. And this moderator is filling in for this board's regular moderator, who is away for several days. If we seem inconsistent, this may be why.
Thanks for your participation.
- CNN Message Board Staff
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom A - 11:12am Dec 9, 1997 ET (#1018 of 1032)
I certainly do agree with Bill Clinton barring funds for human cloning research. The problem is though, the pharmaceutical companies and bio-tech bunch have piles of their own money. Luckily that form of research is outlawed. Cloning for organs is something that should be funded. If I was on dialysis and knew they could grow me new kidneys, assuming they fixed the genetic defect that caused the problem in the first place, no problem.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fosberg - 12:35pm Dec 9, 1997 ET (#1019 of 1032)
Packing material, Don't Eat!
To CNN and other interested persons:
Those conditions are perfectly acceptable to me, not that my opinion actually counts in the decision, of course :^)
I would agree with the federal funding ban also, not for ethical reasons, but for economic reasons. Since private industry can, and will finance this research there is no need to use public moneys for it.
A general concern that I would like to restate is what the long term effects of manipulating our genetic development might be, and what the long term effects of the dramatic medical advances "cloning" and related technologies offer might be.
Already natural selection works by different criteria than it did 100K years ago for our species. Myopia is, for instance, no longer a significant impediment to survival.
Before medical advances and direct genetic manipulation reach levels that render humans "imune" to natural selection I think we should have some idea where we want to go.
Right now, the most "survivable" human tends to pass on genetic inheritance more, but what happens when all humans are equaly "survivable?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom A - 01:14pm Dec 9, 1997 ET (#1020 of 1032)
To CNN Moderator; Understood. Will you please keep your eyes on the Destination Mars board? It needs a lot of cleaning up. Thank you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 03:24pm Dec 9, 1997 ET (#1021 of 1032)
Cliff Beall: efforts to ease suffering should continue even if it tends to add to the population problem.
This is very myopic. Suffering will only increase with a growing population problem.
Cliff Beall: Means that do not result in significant suffering should be employed in limiting population increase.
Yes.
Cliff Beall: I am not sure there is a collective will and conscience of man.
This comes down to belief.
Cliff Beall: increased intelligence should translate into greater wisdom.
I'm not sure about this. Part of wisdom is knowing where you stand among others. A super-intelligent child might assume that what he knows is common sense. They might then treat relatively "stupid" people in a socially harmful manner.
Cliff Beall: I have confidence the right questions will be asked. Whether they can and will be answered adequately is another question. We should at least try.
I agree.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 03:25pm Dec 9, 1997 ET (#1022 of 1032)
Tom A: Mutation is subtle in matters of evolution. Everything is bombarded by cosmic and solar radiation every second of every day. Of course mutation on a scale such as Chernobyl is harmful.
And the rate at which we see mutations occurring is not enough to have caused the number of species we see today. IOW, according to your words, Chernobyl is harmful (but, again, we should at least have seen one new species) because the rate was too high; if the rate were lower, it wouldn't be enough. Therefore, mutation is not what created the species.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 03:25pm Dec 9, 1997 ET (#1023 of 1032)
D. A. Leffler: <Re: Big Bang and Inflation> This is exactly how scientific theories are created.
Yes, I thought about what the differences were. Here's a real-world example. Ptolemy modeled the solar system. He would make his model more and more accurate by making it more and more complicated. This is what's happening to the Big Bang Theory. Physicists keep adding to it without any empirical evidence. The entire branch stemming from the Big Bang Theory is as unnecessarily complicated as the Ptolemaic model.
D. A. Leffler: I think the best any scientist can ever hope to with any theory is disprove it; not prove it to be fact.
I disagree. Another measure to a theory (although somewhat subjective) is simplicity. We would rather use Newton's model than Ptolemy's 'cos Newton's is simpler and more general.
D. A. Leffler: Einstein's relativity theories are based on fitting observed phenomena into a theory that better describes mass and it's consequences, and so far, he was right.
Yes, but he didn't go changing the theory each time the observed facts didn't match.
D. A. Leffer: The best you can do is to disprove it\205
Unfortunately, the SCC was canned. Until we build one, people will have to resort to belief. My original statement was, "I don't believe the Big Bang created the entire universe."
Also, according to Tom Anderson (if I understand him correctly), nothing is true unless it's proved to be; everything else is false; belief is irrelevant.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 03:26pm Dec 9, 1997 ET (#1024 of 1032)
Kurt Schoedel: I think a world government is the worst idea. A world government means a world beaurocracy which would ultimately stifle all progress. The reason why free-market system works better than socialism is because of competition. Governments are a form of monopoly. We don't need any more monopoly in our lives.
I had thought so, too. But the government doesn't have to be socialist. I think a little bit of socialism balanced with a bit of capitalism is great (until we actually do have a completely efficient market.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 03:27pm Dec 9, 1997 ET (#1025 of 1032)
Cliff Beall: I decided to wait and try to do it right.
Thank you for the consideration.
Cliff Beall: I was not particularly impressed with the authority and reliability of the net sources you mentioned,
Yeah, me, too.
Cliff Beall: But actually, the term "mutation" can be used to describe any change in the genetic material.
According to the Encyclopedia of Molecular Biology, there are four (?) different kinds of mutation. In this context, cross-over is one of them, and, therefore, mutation would have created the genetic variation we see. However, I was referring to the widely held concept of point mutations, not this general concept -- point mutations are usually harmful whether they are induced or not.
Cliff Beall: It is in this sense that I mean it.
Then you are right.
Cliff Beall: You seem to be saying that variations can exist, but in order for the variations to exist, a rich gene pool must exist first.
Yes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 03:27pm Dec 9, 1997 ET (#1026 of 1032)
Cliff Beall: the evidence from the fossil record is that the various branches of evolution occurred due to isolation.
But we don't know whether the gene pool existed before or after the split. If it was before, then the isolation selected the phenotypes most successful in the environment. If it was after, then the isolation itself created the new phenotypes. I find the latter hard to believe. It's kinda like the environment saying, "Gee, I have this neat new niche to fill, I think I'll create a thing-a-ma-bob from this species and, thereby, create a new species."
Cliff Beall: differences between the old world monkeys and new world monkeys are due to the continental split between the old and the new worlds.
So, this is what might have happened: 0. The continents split
1. Mutations (in the general context) occurred on one or both of the continents, or, only a limited gene pool existed on one of the continents (unlikely.)
2. The monkeys' species diverged.
However, if you noticed, new gene sequences must have been created prior to the divergence (obviously.) Point mutations are mostly harmful, and, therefore, could not have created this diversity. In the context you've pointed out, though, it can.
Cliff Beall: But there are other ways that isolation of specific members of a species have occurred and resulted in diverging branches.
Also, isolation is not the only method to enrich the gene pool. Reintegration of species also creates new species. Experiments have been done with different species of fruit flies in which a virus inserts one's gene sequence into the other. Note that this mutation is not a point mutation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 03:28pm Dec 9, 1997 ET (#1027 of 1032)
Cliff Beall: it is clear that overall changes to the genetic material (mutations) of the various branches must tend to occur at a constant rate.
With some variation in the rate as shown by the Cambrian (?) Era.
Cliff Beall: Continuous occurance of mutations eventually results in a rich gene pool from which natural selection can operate.
OK, but another problem exists in that different species have differing numbers of chromosomes. A being with N number of chromosomes cannot mate with a being with M number of chromosomes. If M-number came from N-number, all the M-numbers must have common parents. How did the M-number's genetic diversity come about?
Cliff Beall: there is little, if any, conflict with a medical doctor believing in God.
Except in the case of the doctor who transplanted a baboon's heart instead of a chimpanzee's heart into a human child. He believed that one was just as good as the other and, therefore, caused the possibly avoidable death.
Cliff Beall: Thus, even in the life sciences, much of the existing scientific knowledge is typically accepted by men of faith.
Sometimes, people in general will have two belief systems (that inherently conflict) that they'll hop between depending on the situation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 03:28pm Dec 9, 1997 ET (#1028 of 1032)
Philip Carey: [the Creationists] literature is not published in peer reviewed scientific journals. they have contributed little to modern science.
They won't be able to contribute if their papers keep getting blocked. Perhaps the Net will help get their ideas out into the mainstream where it can fend for itself.
Philip Carey: Can anybody quote an instance in which religion has conclusively disproven science?
No. The reason is that they approach beliefs differently. Science says, "I'll believe it if I see it," while religion says, "I'll see it if I believe it."
Tom A: Cloning is pure science.
Is ethics pure science?
Cliff Beall: (This does not mean that a theory can not be "fixed." But if in fixing it, if it loses the "substantial evidence," it is no longer credible.)
And if it undergoes many iterative fixes that aren't converging on an answer, then something's probably wrong with it.
Cliff Beall: when I refer to evolution generally, I am referring to it as a replacement for creation.
Evolutionary Theory does not answer the question of how life came to be.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 03:29pm Dec 9, 1997 ET (#1029 of 1032)
Cliff Beall: <To: Philip Carey> I would be more concerned with the knowledge and skill of the physician than any theological belief system he, or she, might hold.
I have previously posted a similar sentiment.
Tom A - 11:12am Dec 9, 1997 ET (#1018 of 1020)
Tom A: I certainly do agree with Bill Clinton barring funds for human cloning research.
WOW, you and I actually agree on something. OTOH, it was only the exact meaning of mutation we disagreed on.
Tom A: The problem is though, the pharmaceutical companies and bio-tech bunch have piles of their own money.
Ahhh, back off track. I have no problem with private funding; the riskiness of the investments will be enough to control the growth of the technology to within limits that society can handle.
Keith Fosberg: Myopia is, for instance, no longer a significant impediment to survival.
Says you. If my eyes keep getting worse, I won't be able to read my terminal any more :)
Keith Fosberg: what happens when all humans are equaly "survivable?"
The "fittest" humans today will have the best memes to cope with his society. Science and technology are the memes of the first world countries; those that know and understand it will be better able to reproduce.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom A - 06:06pm Dec 9, 1997 ET (#1030 of 1032)
Noel Yap: "Therefore, mutation is not what created the species."
Very good. Natural Selection. It has never been said that mutation is the sole contributor to speciation. What hocus pocus have you been reading? And just exactly what is your position on how speciation came about?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom A - 06:14pm Dec 9, 1997 ET (#1031 of 1032)
Noel Yap: "WOW, you and I actually agree on something. OTOH, it was only the exact meaning of mutation we disagreed on."
My posts are not intended for you.
"Is ethics pure science?"
If you don't know what pure science is by now, then give up.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom A - 06:39pm Dec 9, 1997 ET (#1032 of 1032)
Noel Yap; On the contrary, some of my posts are for you since you have a terrible habit of not discussing but picking out things that people say...so:""Gee, I have this neat new niche to fill, I think I'll create a thing-a-ma-bob from this species and, thereby, create a new species."
In other words: "There is more in heaven and earth than is dreamt of in YOUR philosophy" Shakespeare
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Carey - 09:37pm Dec 9, 1997 ET (#1033 of 1036)
Noel; Thanks for the distinction you drew between science and religion. Well put. When I said I thought Cliff would choose a physician who accepted evolution over a ''scientific creationist'' physician I specifically qualified it by stating '' ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL'' e.g. ''Knowledge and skills.'' That being the case, I still believe you or he would choose the former.P.S. Did you know that cloneliness is next to Godliness ? I have found that people are more receptive to discussing cloning when I point out that identical twins are true clones. I'm going to lurk a while until the discussion becomes a little more focused and civil.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 11:04pm Dec 9, 1997 ET (#1034 of 1036)
Noel Yap: And the rate at which we see mutations occurring is not enough to have caused the number of species we see today.
Well, if you project the number of natural occurring mutations over a period of about six hundred million years, there may be enough. Actually, life began on this planet much earlier, about three and a half billions of years ago, but it appears that it has been only in the last six hundred million years that complex forms of life have evolved.
D. A. Leffler: Einstein's relativity theories are based on fitting observed phenomena into a theory that better describes mass and it's consequences, and so far, he was right.
Noel Yap: Yes, but he didn't go changing the theory each time the observed facts didn't match.
Actually, he did. One of the interesting things about Einstein is that he spoke freely about his mistakes, and even joked about the frequency of the changes to his theory of General Relativity at one point. But each correction resulted in a simpler, cleaner and more consistent theory than before.
Noel Yap: Also, according to Tom Anderson (if I understand him correctly), nothing is true unless it's proved to be; everything else is false; belief is irrelevant.
Yeah, that is my understanding too. I think the first part is wrong. (There are things that are true, but not proved. A simple example is that until a few years ago, Fermat's "last theorem" was unproven. But it was just as true before it was proven as after it was proven.) I agree that belief is irrelevant.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 11:09pm Dec 9, 1997 ET (#1035 of 1036)
Noel Yap: If it was after, then the isolation itself created the new phenotypes. I find the latter hard to believe.
Isolation did not create new phenotypes. We should not be talking about old and new phenotypes. Instead, we should be talking about the evolution of multiple isolated populations. If a small group of a species is isolated from the main group, they will evolve differently than the main group, but both groups will evolve. If they remain isolated from each other long enough, they are likely to form separate species. The cells in our bodies, as well as theirs, are constantly mutating. That is the reason identical twins are never really identical. And that is why clones will not be identical either.
Incidentally, this means also that clones, and clones of clones can evolve. Suppose you clone an individual, and from that clone, you clone another individual, and from that clone, you clone another and so on for several generation. Each succeeding generation of clone will be increasingly different from the individual from which the first clone was produced. The reason is that the cells of each generation will contain additional mutations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 11:22pm Dec 9, 1997 ET (#1036 of 1036)
Noel Yap: OK, but another problem exists in that different species have differing numbers of chromosomes. A being with N number of chromosomes cannot mate with a being with M number of chromosomes. If M-number came from N-number, all the M-numbers must have common parents. How did the M-number's genetic diversity come about?
I have two major disappointments with the lecture by Dr. Montelone (reference the net address I supplied in my post yesterday). One is that she mentions that mutation are the "major source of genetic variation which fuels evolutionary change," but indicates the details are in another lecture about "population genetics and evolution," not available on the net. This is the other. Here she mentions that there are basically two types of evolution, gross (involving evolution at the level of the chromosome) "which we have already discussed" and point alterations (the subject of the lecture she put on the net).
I think that if I had access to her earlier lecture on "gross evolution," I think I would have the answer to your question. Unfortunately, I do not. I'll bet she knows, however.
Philip Carey: I'm going to lurk a while until the discussion becomes a little more focused and civil.
Philip, I don't know about focused, but this is about as civil as it gets. Don't lurk too long. I enjoy you posts, particularly when I can find fault with them. I invite the same fault finding with my posts. Cheers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom A - 12:27am Dec 10, 1997 ET (#1037 of 1047)
Hey. If you want to see natural selection at work, check out some work on yeast cells and bacteria. Where do resistant strains of flu and TB come from? Our misuse of antibiotics..thats where. Variation exists in that population to the degree that the ones resistant to antibiotics emerge or are selected for due to extremely quick reproduction in a short time. Can you call them a new or sub-species?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Eh - 10:41am Dec 10, 1997 ET (#1038 of 1047)
"Evolution is not progress. Populations simply adapt to their current surroundings. They do not necessarily become better in any absolute sense over time. A trait or strategy that is successful at one time may be unsuccessful at another. Paquin and Adams demonstrated this experimentally. They founded a yeast culture and maintained it for many generations. Occasionally, a mutation would arise that allowed its bearer to reproduce better than its contemporaries. These mutant strains would crowd out the formerly dominant strains. Samples of the most successful strains from the culture were taken at a variety of times. In later competition experiments, each strain would outcompete the immediately previously dominant type in a culture. However, some earlier isolates could outcompete strains that arose late in the experiment. Competitive ability of a strain was always better than its previous type, but competitiveness in a general sense was not increasing. Any organism's success depends on the behavior of its contemporaries. For most traits or behaviors there is likely no optimal design or strategy, only contingent ones. Evolution can be like a game of paper/scissors/rock."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fosberg - 01:08pm Dec 10, 1997 ET (#1039 of 1047)
Packing material, Don't Eat!
Although there is significant merit to what you say, I think you can also identify populations that become survival overachievers.
Some traits have such long term significance that they are continualy selected for in sucessive generations.
Certain primate species have exploited inteligence in this fashion.
Saurians exploited physical characteristics that enabled them to dominate thier environment for millions of years, until the environment changed!
Evolution for humans is already becoming more deterministic due to medical advances and our social structures. Greater and greater advances in genetic sciences will ultimatly make human evolution almost completely deterministic.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 03:19pm Dec 10, 1997 ET (#1040 of 1047)
Tom A: Natural Selection.
Again, natural selection needs something to select from.
Tom A: It has never been said that mutation is the sole contributor to speciation.
This has been my point all along. What causes speciation? Again, Darwin never mentioned anything of it -- this is his theory's limitation.
Tom A: What hocus pocus have you been reading?
The Encyclopedia of Evolution and The Encylopedia of Molecular Biology. What've you been reading? Please don't tell me some text written over 100 years ago.
Tom A: And just exactly what is your position on how speciation came about?
According to The Encyclopedia of Molecular Biology, there are at least two different categories of mutations -- point mutations and frameshift mutations (insertions and deletions.) Point mutations can be silent. Frameshift mutations can lead to altered amino-acid sequences and premature terminations.
It has been my point that frameshift mutations (ie crossover) causes speciation and point mutations are mostly harmful. Both of these facts have been demonstrated in the lab.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 03:32pm Dec 10, 1997 ET (#1041 of 1047)
Tom A: If you don't know what pure science is by now, then give up.
Just like we used differing definitions for "mutation," I'd like to hear your definition for "pure science." Again, is ethics pure science? Moreover, considering your answer to this, is cloning still a pure science?
Tom A: In other words: "There is more in heaven and earth than is dreamt of in YOUR philosophy" Shakespeare
This is exactly why I pose questions and don't blindly accept what given to me. Darwin was not God; he could not have foreseen the progress of molecular biology and, therefore, his draft of evolutionary theory could not have been complete.
Also, I have no problems discussing topics when facts are presented -- facts don't include ranting and raving about "Haven't you ever read Darwin?" or any such nonsense.
Philip Carey: When I said I thought Cliff would choose a physician who accepted evolution over a ''scientific creationist'' physician I specifically qualified it by stating '' ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL''
Yes, I caught that.
Cliff Beall: <Re: General Relativity and corrections> But each correction resulted in a simpler, cleaner and more consistent theory than before.
Unlike the Big Bang Theory. Another analogy would be if physicists kept "fixing" and "tweaking" Newton's "Laws" so that it could predict Mercury's orbit. It took Einstein's theories to properly model that. Funny how one is still a law and the other still a theory.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 03:32pm Dec 10, 1997 ET (#1042 of 1047)
Cliff Beall: Incidentally, this means also that clones, and clones of clones can evolve.
Yes. Although I would guess at a much slower pace unless there is some mechanism by which frameshift mutations can occur.
Cliff Beall: Each succeeding generation of clone will be increasingly different from the individual from which the first clone was produced. The reason is that the cells of each generation will contain additional mutations.
Yes, but not enough to change the number of chromosomes they have.
Cliff Beall: I think that if I had access to her earlier lecture on "gross evolution," I think I would have the answer to your question.
Nevertheless, it gives me a new direction to search.
Tom Eh: Evolution can be like a game of paper/scissors/rock."
I agree. But with GenEng, we will no longer be held by the whims of random mutations -- from now on, I'll stick to the general meaning of "mutation"; I'll specify which type of mutation when necessary. Cloning is one tiny step towards GenEng.
Keith Fosberg: Greater and greater advances in genetic sciences will ultimatly make human evolution almost completely deterministic.
It depends on what you mean by "deterministic." Our environment will change in a non-deterministic manner long after we control our phenomes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 03:33pm Dec 10, 1997 ET (#1043 of 1047)
OTOH, if we keep ourselves kooked up in climate-controlled environments, maybe not.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fosberg - 03:46pm Dec 10, 1997 ET (#1044 of 1047)
Packing material, Don't Eat!
That was part of my point. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Eh - 05:20pm Dec 10, 1997 ET (#1045 of 1047)
Noel Yap; Your an anti-Darwinist (ie.in a scientific minority) we can't talk.
I can't believe that from my whole 1038 post you picked out one small statement.
"Darwin never mentioned anything of it -- this is his theory's limitation."
I'm certainly going to look into that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 05:28pm Dec 10, 1997 ET (#1046 of 1047)
Tom Eh: Your an anti-Darwinist
I very much respect Darwin and his theory. However, we must all realize that a lot of knowledge has been gained since he wrote his book some 130 years ago.
Tom Eh: I can't believe that from my whole 1038 post you picked out one small statement.
Sorry, I thought I picked out the one that had the essense of the post.
Tom Eh: I'm certainly going to look into that.
That's part of learning. If you find out otherwise, please correct my rantings ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Eh - 07:09pm Dec 10, 1997 ET (#1047 of 1047)
Noel Yap: Both Darwin and Mendel don't mention mutation. Genes and DNA were unknown then.
here read:www.literature.org/Works/Charles-Darwin/origin/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Scott Alexander - 07:18am Dec 11, 1997 ET (#1048 of 1055)
The human species is now at the point where it can truly control its destiny. Scientists can determine the escence that is responsible for the nature of every human being. Mental and physical attributes can be enhanced for millions if adequate funding is provided.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 07:19am Dec 11, 1997 ET (#1049 of 1055)
Tom Eh: Genes and DNA were unknown then.
Yup, just like I posted. Thanks for confirming this absurdly obvious fact.
Also, I posted (a few dozen posts back) other Darwin/evolution history you might be interested in.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 07:38am Dec 11, 1997 ET (#1050 of 1055)
Robert Scott Alexander: The human species is now at the point where it can truly control its destiny.
No, not quite yet. We still don't know how everything ties into the big picture (ie the consequences towards environment, ecosystem, and the future.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom A - 03:56pm Dec 11, 1997 ET (#1051 of 1055)
Noel Yap #1049: Nothing is obvious such as that. You were once told that or read that at some time. I was just making sure. Anything obviously wrong with that? Also as I said before, I usually can't be bothered reading your lengthy blither. You probably did mention it "somewhere" in amongst everything else.
You mode of communicating I find inefficient and very inaccurate trying to talk to 10 people at once!
Besides, mutation is OBVIOUSLY another piece to be added to evolution along with Darwin's theory.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 04:10pm Dec 11, 1997 ET (#1052 of 1055)
Tom A: mutation is OBVIOUSLY another piece to be added to evolution along with Darwin's theory.
If you took the time to read my posts, we wouldn't be wasting time rehashing them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom A - 04:45pm Dec 11, 1997 ET (#1053 of 1055)
Noel Yap; Also, Darwin and Mendel were somewhat on the verge of describing genes as units of inheritance. Darwin coined a term "pangene" and Mendel (1822-1884) had a view of "paired genes" ("Principles of Genetics" Gardner 5th Ed. pp 3). A Wilhelm Roux postulated "as early as 1883 that chromosomes within the nucleus of the cell were the bearers of hereditary factors". (ibid. pp 4)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 05:01pm Dec 11, 1997 ET (#1054 of 1055)
Tom A: Darwin and Mendel were somewhat on the verge of describing genes as units of inheritance.
What's your point?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom A - 06:06pm Dec 11, 1997 ET (#1055 of 1055)
Noel Yap #1049:"Tom Eh: Genes and DNA were unknown then.
Yup, just like I posted. Thanks for confirming this absurdly obvious fact."
Well, thats my point. Aside from DNA, you should not have agreed with me. I corrected myself somewhat.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 07:12am Dec 12, 1997 ET (#1056 of 1064)
Tom A: Darwin and Mendel were somewhat on the verge of describing genes as units of inheritance.
Being on the verge of describing genes is a far cry from knowing about them as we do today.
We now know that genes themselves aren't traits, but are instead interpreted to be. We also know the alphabet and vocabulary of genetics. Once we completely understand the grammar and style, I see nothing stopping us from creating completely new organisms (ie a cross between an elephant and a pig, maybe even with four butts ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fosberg - 09:24am Dec 12, 1997 ET (#1057 of 1064)
Packing material, Don't Eat!
Try reading C.J. Cherryh's Cyteen series for some interesting insight into genectic manipulation and society.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom A - 10:11am Dec 12, 1997 ET (#1058 of 1064)
Noel Yap: "Being on the verge of describing genes is a far cry from knowing about them as we do today."
So what's your point?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 03:10pm Dec 12, 1997 ET (#1059 of 1064)
Tom A: what's your point?
I posted that in the second paragraph but I see you're still in the habit of skipping most of what's written.
So, in kindergarten English: If what you posted is true, Darwin didn't know about genes -- ooh, is there a simpler word for genetics? Oh yeah, pangenes :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 03:20pm Dec 12, 1997 ET (#1060 of 1064)
So, Tom, it's very difficult to have a discussion when questions don't get answered. My past questions to you have been: 0. Why do you read/post to these boards?
1. What is your definition of "pure science?"
2. Is ethics pure science?
3. What have you been reading?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom A - 04:46pm Dec 12, 1997 ET (#1061 of 1064)
Noel Yap: 0- because I like to 1- the physical sciences as subject to the scientific method 2- No. 3- Plenty
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Carey - 05:01pm Dec 12, 1997 ET (#1062 of 1064)
Dear Tom and Noel; by training and vocation, my expertise is in mental health, not science. However, I enjoy immensely following your exchanges. You are both exceptionally bright and knowledgeable individuals. I have learned much from following this board and occasionally try to contribute. However you have both been busy lately plucking motes from each others eye. I'm beginning to miss your more substantive, intellectually stimulating and challenging (as well as more temperate) exchanges. Disagreement and controversy are healthy, indeed essential to science. But this seems to be becoming increasingly personalized and petty. I think Cliff might rejoin the trinity if the board becomes a little more environmentally friendly. Just my thoughts. No offense intended.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 05:12pm Dec 12, 1997 ET (#1063 of 1064)
Noel Yap: Is ethics pure science?
Tom A: No.
Since the big picture of cloning involves ethics and other things, cloning is not pure science -- or, rather, I should more precisely say that the decisions involve non-pure science stuff. This is pretty much rehashing stuff that you've missed. If I recall, we went into topics like: 0. Should we regulate R&D?
1. What about the other countries?
2. What about poor people?
3. What about the population problem?
4. What about those opposed on religious grounds?
I'm probably missing some -- if anyone else is left on the board, please fill in anything I've missed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom A - 06:09pm Dec 12, 1997 ET (#1064 of 1064)
Noel Yap: And by physical I mean anything ponderable in nature from the atomic to the macroscopic.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Nicolai - 05:18am Dec 13, 1997 ET (#1065 of 1066)
Located in Taipei Taiwan
Wellll... now we are getting into it. Science is increasingly becomming a religion. I'm defining a relition as what people really beleive in when the going gets rough. Ahhh... but you say science requires an article of faith and Science only uses logic?
Well lets consider Achems razor. (sp?)
Virtually all scientists *beleive* that given two or more explinations that explain all the obseravable evidence the simpelest one is the best.
This what held the field when explaining that the "solar" system made more sence when the sun was viewed as the center.
Science is replacing all preveous religions.
There are no evel people they are just mentally ill.
There is no distruction of "Gods" creatures there are just enviromentally unsound practices.
Quack quack quack.
Because cloning was not possable when earlier religions were formed it is one of the things that intenseifies the conflict.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom A - 10:59am Dec 13, 1997 ET (#1066 of 1066)
Carl Nic: Spelling: It's Ochams Razor and the principle of parsimony. Your spelling is real bad.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom A - 08:59pm Dec 13, 1997 ET (#1067 of 1070)
Noel Yap: I have no desire to discuss ethical issues at length. Each one you mentioned requires whole different message boards as far as I'm concerned.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 11:11pm Dec 13, 1997 ET (#1068 of 1070)
I have have been searching the internet for information bearing on our discussion of evolution as it relates to cloning and have found what appears to be an excellent introduction to evolutionary biology by Chris Colby, available from the talk.origins archive at:
http://earth.ics.uci.edu/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
The Talk.Origins Archive, called an FAQ, contains mainstream scientific responses to the frequently asked questions that appear in talk.origins. The talk.origins usenet newsgroup is, apparently, a place where the evolutionist and creationist go to argue the relative merits of evolution and creation. In addition to to the Chris Colby "General Introduction to Evolutionary Biology," the Talk.Origins Archive contains a number of other articles favorable to evolutionary theory. It also contains links to sites favorable to creation. One such link to a FAQ written by one of the creationist contributors to the talk.origins usenet newsgroup is at:
http://www.zeta.org.au/~jeffcox/creation.html
I also found a site containing lecture notes for PBIO 250 by James L. Reveal, University of Maryland:
http://www.inform.umd.edu/PBIO/pb250/evol.html
The main reason I am including this address is that it is an example of several that cite the article by Chris Colby as a reliable source of information. In this case, the Colby article is listed as required reading for the noted course in biology.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 11:14pm Dec 13, 1997 ET (#1069 of 1070)
One of the things I have learned in my search is that recent genetic studies of portions of the X chromosome, inherited only from the mother, and portions of the Y chromosome, inherited only from the father, have been found to contain less than the expected amount of mutation and this has resulted in an "Out of Africa" theory of human evolution, as opposed to evolution through the traditional transitional types such as neanderthal, previously thought by many scientist to be in the line of human evolution.
The creationist have picked up on this and used it for their purpose in an attempt to cast doubt on human evolution. See the article "Are We Evolving," by Dr. Hugh Ross, reachable from the following address:
http://www.yfiles.com
The above site contains other links to "questionable" (from my point of view, of course) information. Actually, I probably shouldn't say that. Dr. Ross, an astrophysicist at Caltec, appears to be very knowledgable on string theory, and it seems likely to me that his discussion on string theory, available from the same site, is probably as reliable as one is likely to find. However, with respect to evolutionary biology, a better, more reliable (from my point of view) source of information, based on the same reasearch, is from the Earth Magazine archive at the following address:
http://www.kalmbach.com/earth/Archive/Feb96/OutofAfrica4.html
For a laugh on the same theme, check out:
http://www.vvv.com/~tsprackett/ancestors.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 11:16pm Dec 13, 1997 ET (#1070 of 1070)
I continue to entertain the hypothesis that succeeding generations of asexually reproduced clones will evolve due to natural mutation. Furthermore, I am of the opinion that studying the genetic changes of the succeeding generations of clones could help to establish more accurate rates of mutations for the specific animal(s) under study. And finally, I think that such an experiment could shed light on the relative safety of the cloning procedure (possible side effects).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 12:17am Dec 14, 1997 ET (#1071 of 1072)
Tom A: Noel Yap #1049: Nothing is obvious such as that. You were once told that or read that at some time. I was just making sure. Anything obviously wrong with that? Also as I said before, I usually can't be bothered reading your lengthy blither. You probably did mention it "somewhere" in amongst everything else.
Tom A: You mode of communicating I find inefficient and very inaccurate trying to talk to 10 people at once!
Tom, the thing that bothers me about your mode of communicating is that you write someone's name, put a colon and a space behind it, and then proceed to address that person. The first time you did that, I spent several minutes trying to find where that person had said what you were indicating he had said. And then it dawned on me that instead of "quoting" that person, you were "addressing" that person. Other times, however, using a similar notation, you are actually quoting that person. It is very confusing.
It is very easy to indicate when you are quoting someone. Just put a 'greater than' sigh (>) in front of the paragraph, and the paragraph is automatically indented and formatted in a different typeface.
When you are addressing someone in particular, if you would simply put a comma behind the name of that person and continue the sentence, your intent would be clear.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 12:28am Dec 14, 1997 ET (#1072 of 1072)
Philip Carey: I think Cliff might rejoin the trinity if the board becomes a little more environmentally friendly.
Philip, I am not part of any trinity. I am an individual. One of a kind. I address issues I wish to address when I wish it address them and talk to anyone I want to talk to when I want to. In other words, I am one independent cuss. The reason I haven't been around for a few days is that in addition to spending a considerable amount of time searching the internet for information I thought might be useful to us, I got interested in a book, "Was Einstein Right." It is an old book I bought a long time ago, but recent discussion of Einstein sparked a desire for a re-read.
Carl Nicolai: Wellll... now we are getting into it. Science is increasingly becomming a religion. I'm defining a relition as what people really beleive in when the going gets rough. Ahhh... but you say science requires an article of faith and Science only uses logic?
Carl, who are you addressing? Who said science requires an article of faith?
Tom A: Carl Nic: Spelling: It's Ochams Razor and the principle of parsimony. Your spelling is real bad.
Tom, I know I am setting myself up for a fall, but I can't help myself: your grammar is really bad.
Tom A: Noel Yap: I have no desire to discuss ethical issues at length. Each one you mentioned requires whole different message boards as far as I'm concerned.
Tom, I believe that ethical issues with respect to cloning is one of the subjects of this board.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Nicolai - 01:17am Dec 14, 1997 ET (#1073 of 1074)
Located in Taipei Taiwan
Cliff sorry. I meant religion requires an article of faith.
The point is that the major religions of today are not equiped to deal the moral and ethical issues that the technology spawned by science is creating, at least not the monotheistic ones.
Humans will strive to become like their gods and since the western God is a creator, that is exactly what people in that culture will identify with.
When the old religious ideas don't provide enough guidence people will develop new ones.
Monosexual reproduction just wasen't considered by people two or more thousend years ago.
If "Science" doesen't acquire religious aspects and the "old" relgions cant deal with the new ideas, then some really strange religions will gain powrer.
Try accounting for that Japineese cult that put the nerve gas in the Tokyo subway. Totally bonkers.
New inventions convey new rights and power to the users and new responsibllities must be exercised.
Government is a large part of the problem. By a history of the vast spending of public money on Science it has accellerated the process of obtaining the means to enhance mans ability to controll even his own reproduction and evlolution.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Johari MA - 09:35am Dec 14, 1997 ET (#1074 of 1074)
Carl Nicolai 12/14/97 1:17am
CN:The point is that the major religions of today are not equiped to deal the moral and ethical issues that the technology spawned by science is creating, at least not the monotheistic ones.
Which major religion are you referring to, Carl?. However, it would not be a complete surprise to me, most uninformed individuals tend to make such (poor) generalisation, as they would (usually) make a statement w/o studying the major religions with full objectivity and thorough examination/understanding.
I can assure you, if you are referring to my belief system (Muslim), that statement is not valid. Under our standard operating procedure, we are obliged to set up a comittee of discussion, to identify and solve 'new' problems (eg ethical issues in Cloning). In this comittee, all the "professors" (in religion, and academician : scientist) will discuss the issue face-to-face and present their own POV. All the pros and cons will be presented, from both sides. Generally speaking, if the 'new' technology have more benefits to mankind, it will be accepted. For example, I am very optimistic that cloning animal livestock for medical purposes (eg Polly) would be 'accepted' w/o any problem, considering its benefits to mankind.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Carey - 12:02pm Dec 14, 1997 ET (#1075 of 1076)
Cliff; I , coincidentally, also recently purchased a small book of Einstein's collected essays ( Essays In Humanism ) which I thoroughly enjoyed. I consider most of his philosophical, social, and political observations enlightened and enlightening. Unlike some scientists, he was willing to descend from his ivory tower of academics to mingle and share his brilliance with the masses. I have particularly been influenced by his strong anti authoritarian views. Re: cloning and differentation. In the most recent Discover magazine '' Another reason cloned humans seem so unacceptable is the fear that they really would be carbon copies. But--- identical twins are not really identical--- and clones would be even less so. the reason is that there are more than genes at work in development.'' They give as examples the variables in intrauterine and extrauterine development,and conclude that clones will have far less in common than identical twins. Please forgive the ''trinity'' remark'' I simply see you, Tom and Noel as the triumvirate who have kept the cloning board viable and worth following. Enjoy your day.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom A - 12:15pm Dec 14, 1997 ET (#1076 of 1077)
Cliff Beall: My grammar is just fine thank you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 02:13am Dec 15, 1997 ET (#1077 of 1077)
Carl, there will always be strange religions. Some people think the mainstream religions are strange. I personally think that it is secular society that must deal with this problem, however. I am not comfortable with leaving this question to religion. Religion does not speak for me. But I think secular society could more effectively deal with this problem, as well as other problems, if we had a world government based on democratic principles along the lines that I have previously suggested.
Johari, the procedures you have outlined appear to be good ones for your religion. However, for the reason I mentioned in my post to Carl, I believe secular society must be the ruling body. (No religion speaks for me.)
Philip, as Jared Diamond pointed out in Discover several issues ago, there is a penalty to be paid by scientists willing to descend from the ivory tower of academics to mingle and share their insight with the masses. The insult to Carl Sagan by his peers at the National Academy of Sciences is an example. That Sagan actually returned and addressed them in a civil manner speaks volumes for the man. There will never be another Sagan, as there will never be another Einstein. But when a scientist, like Einstein or Sagan, has the capability to speak to the common man effectively, they should be encouraged by the scientific community, not scorned. (And yes, Einstein also had problems with his "celebrity.")
From your description, the article in Discover appears to preempt my suggestion that clones may evolve. I will have to check it out.
Tom, I agree. That you replaced an adverb with a noun is trivial. My point, however, is that, in the words of one of the greatest philosophical minds of all time, Jesus of Nazareth: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Or if you prefer the secular version, "People who live in glass houses should not throw stones."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom A - 10:46am Dec 15, 1997 ET (#1078 of 1079)
Cliff Beall: Here's one of mine...Don't keep it to yourself, tell 'em!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 12:02pm Dec 15, 1997 ET (#1079 of 1079)
Tom, that was funny. I think maybe I like your style after all. Have a good day.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
detra green - 01:08pm Dec 15, 1997 ET (#1080 of 1087)
HEY is for Horses
I disagree with cloning totally. Sheep, cow, humans, it doesn't matter. It's so against the rules.
Let's not make Multiplicity a true story.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 03:07pm Dec 15, 1997 ET (#1081 of 1087)
Philip Carey: Disagreement and controversy are healthy, indeed essential to science. But this seems to be becoming increasingly personalized and petty.
Well, he started it ;) Seriously, though, I try to stay away from personal attacks. I apologise for the slips.
Carl Nicolai: Science is increasingly becomming a religion.
Yes, to those who treat scientists as gods and theories as complete and infallible.
Carl Nicolai: Science is replacing all preveous religions.
Yes, it is a meme just like any other religion.
Tom A: I have no desire to discuss ethical issues at length. Each one you mentioned requires whole different message boards as far as I'm concerned.
Problems don't sit in isolation. The decisions we make must take into consideration the problems' contexts. If you, personally, don't wish to discuss cloning as a whole (including the original intent of this board -- Clinton's banning governmental funding), that's your choice. Some others on this board aren't so reductionist.
Cliff Beall: I am of the opinion that studying the genetic changes of the succeeding generations of clones could help to establish more accurate rates of mutations for the specific animal(s) under study.
I'm not sure how well we can gauge this. If we place the clones into a controlled environment, we disregard the effects of viruses and other organisms that can inject new code into the gene sequences.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 03:08pm Dec 15, 1997 ET (#1082 of 1087)
Tom A: Carl Nic: Spelling: It's Ochams Razor and the principle of parsimony. Your spelling is real bad.
That's Occam's Razor.
Carl Nicolai: The point is that the major religions of today are not equiped to deal the moral and ethical issues that the technology spawned by science is creating, at least not the monotheistic ones.
I disagree. The basic teachings of the religions still pertain. It's when the followers stick to hard-and-fast rules written under other social conditions that the religion fails. If the followers consider why those rules came to be, they could form newer guidelines for today's society.
Carl Nicolai: When the old religious ideas don't provide enough guidence people will develop new ones.
I agree -- God is immortal only to the point that people still believe in Him.
Johari MA: Under [Islam's] standard operating procedure, we are obliged to set up a comittee of discussion, to identify and solve 'new' problems (eg ethical issues in Cloning).
Catholicism has the same precedures. The problem I've got with this is that individuals still wind up blindly following the decisions of "authoritative" figures.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 03:08pm Dec 15, 1997 ET (#1083 of 1087)
Johari MA: if the 'new' technology have more benefits to mankind, it will be accepted.
I don't think this is the sole basis for the Catholic Board.
Johari MA: I am very optimistic that cloning animal livestock for medical purposes (eg Polly) would be 'accepted' w/o any problem, considering its benefits to mankind.
What about human cloning?
Philip Carey: [Einstein] was willing to descend from his ivory tower of academics to mingle and share his brilliance with the masses. I have particularly been influenced by his strong anti authoritarian views.
Sounds a lot like Jesus ;)
Philip Carey: I simply see you, Tom and Noel as the triumvirate who have kept the cloning board viable and worth following.
Well, thank you. But I would include Johari and Sohail as good religious contributors.
detra green: I disagree with cloning totally. Sheep, cow, humans, it doesn't matter. It's so against the rules.
Which rules?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
detra green - 03:32pm Dec 15, 1997 ET (#1084 of 1087)
HEY is for Horses
Rules of human life. I don't think that GOD would agree with that (cloning mammals).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fosberg - 03:33pm Dec 15, 1997 ET (#1085 of 1087)
Packing material, Don't Eat!
Detra,
Relax. IF you commisioned some facility to create a clone of you no one would have trouble telling you and her apart. All else being the same you would be (insert your age) years older than her!
There is nothing inherantly evil or wrong about cloning or any other genectic technique. Where we will face our dilemas is in how we utilise these technologies in our society, and how our society may change due to their introduction.
P.S. I'm, sniffle hurt you all forgot about me!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom A - 04:13pm Dec 15, 1997 ET (#1086 of 1087)
Noel Yap: Shame on me. Occams Razor it is. I got parsimony correct.
Also I did comment on Clinton funding. I support only funding for organ growth research.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
brainny a+ - 04:24pm Dec 15, 1997 ET (#1087 of 1089)
Survival of the speices In any manner is the trait of a virus. As all living life is,on this planet. The second rule is reproduction. And those are the only rules. pretaining to the exsitance of all life in any form upon this planet. except when two robots are at a street corner and one asks, "Who created the heavens and the earth". and the reply is "MAN" for did he not create us in his image. To create life par a cell and not by the old standard ie. sperm, yes is frightful as was the invention of the gun. But then it is the use of employment which decides a wrong or right. and will these cell creatures turn against their makers as we did to our Gods, or will they in turn show us the way to the power of thought, and lead us from the use of stupidty, the first long step towards an imagination yet to be understood, so in order to know ourselves fully, before we are replaced. For is not the history of earth nothing but a compiling of fossils. Rather than the facade live for the whole.That way the achievement is greater. regardless of the percent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 04:43pm Dec 15, 1997 ET (#1088 of 1089)
detra green: Rules of human life. I don't think that GOD would agree with that (cloning mammals).
I'm glad we finally have someone on this board who believes in God and doesn't support cloning. I must warn you, you are in the minority. I hope you defend your beliefs well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Schoedel - 07:43pm Dec 15, 1997 ET (#1089 of 1089)
Again, I must say that using religious belief arguments in debating the merits of cloning can only be applicable to those who believe in those religious beliefs. Those of you who believe in religious still don't seem to get it. Your belief systems cannot be applied to those of us (like myself) who reject them. You seem to believe that your beliefs apply to us. I don't know what it's going to take to cure you of this delusion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Nicolai - 12:31am Dec 16, 1997 ET (#1090 of 1105)
Located in Taipei Taiwan
I have no problem with people who beleive or don't beleive in any religion, but many religions after what ever process they use, conclude that people who disagree are evil and should be eliminated.
This causes a lot of wars.
At this time the best estimate is that the "clone wars" will be started in the early 2020s.
Even the genetic manipulation, including clonng, of plants is being severly questioned.
Bio engineers, IMHO, are going to be hailed as the saviors and devels of the scientific community.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Nicolai - 12:34am Dec 16, 1997 ET (#1091 of 1105)
Located in Taipei Taiwan
I have no problem with people who beleive or don't beleive in any religion, but many religions, after what ever process they use, conclude that people who disagree are evil and should be eliminated.
This causes a lot of wars.
At this time the best estimate is that the "clone wars" will be started in the early 2020s.
Even the genetic manipulation, including clonng, of plants is being severly questioned.
Bio engineers, IMHO, are going to be hailed as the saviors and devels of the scientific community.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 12:52am Dec 16, 1997 ET (#1092 of 1094)
Philip, I have searched the December issue of Discover for your quote and was unable to find it. Can you give additional direction? (I am, of course, interested in any collaboration--preemption is fine--of my previously noted hypothesis that clones can evolve due to natural occurring mutation.)
Carl Nicolai: Science is replacing all preveous religions.
Noel Yap: Yes, it is a meme just like any other religion.
Wait a minute guys. Seems to me you guys have leaped from a hypothesis to a conclusion before thinking it through. As near as I can tell, the Baptist church is about as strong as it has ever been. So is the Methodist church. How is science replacing the Baptists and the Methodists, much less the Pentecostals, the Catholics, the Muslims, the Jews, the Hindus, the Buddhist and the Zoroastrians. I agree that it is possible to make a religion of science, and to "those who treat scientists as gods and theories as complete and infallible," it is a religion. But science replacing religion in general? Get real.
Noel Yap: I'm not sure how well we can gauge [genetic changes of the succeeding generations of clones]. If we place the clones into a controlled environment, we disregard the effects of viruses and other organisms that can inject new code into the gene sequences.
This is something of a reversal on the concept of a "controlled experiment." Not a bad caution, however.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 12:57am Dec 16, 1997 ET (#1093 of 1094)
Philip Carey: [Einstein] was willing to descend from his ivory tower of academics to mingle and share his brilliance with the masses. I have particularly been influenced by his strong anti authoritarian views.
Noel Yap: Sounds a lot like Jesus ;)
It does, doesn't it? But I think Philip's characterization of Einstein is correct, and now that I think about it, I see an incredible similarity between those two great men.
Keith Fosberg: There is nothing inherantly evil or wrong about cloning or any other genectic technique. Where we will face our dilemas is in how we utilise these technologies in our society, and how our society may change due to their introduction.
I agree.
Keith Fosberg: P.S. I'm, sniffle hurt you all forgot about me!
If it means anything to you, it is my opinion that you, Kurt and Carl have formulated most of the significant ideas and questions examined on this board. I am not aware that Tom has contributed anything of any significance to the cloning debate, although I must admit that he has demonstrated exquisite wit, of which I greatly admire.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Beall - 01:08am Dec 16, 1997 ET (#1094 of 1094)
brainny a+: To create life par a cell and not by the old standard ie. sperm, yes is frightful as was the invention of the gun.
That is certainly a most reassuring analogy:-)
Kurt Schoedel: Again, I must say that using religious belief arguments in debating the merits of cloning can only be applicable to those who believe in those religious beliefs.
Kurt, I agree. You will notice that in a recent post, I insist that secular society must be the ruling body since religion does not speak for me.
Kurt Schoedel: Those of you who believe in religious still don't seem to get it. Your belief systems cannot be applied to those of us (like myself) who reject them. You seem to believe that your beliefs apply to us. I don't know what it's going to take to cure you of this delusion.
However, they have a right to speak for their belief systems just as you and I have a right to speak for ours. Neither you nor I speak for them, and we don't shut up just because they happen to be around.
Carl Nicolai: At this time the best estimate is that the "clone wars" will be started in the early 2020s.
Carl, you have mentioned this before. Is this your estimate, or someone else's?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Schoedel - 02:57am Dec 16, 1997 ET (#1095 of 1100)
Yes, the religious people do have the right to speak for thier beliefs. However, they do not have the right to impose them on the rest of us. It is the latter in which I was refering to. I have never advocated any kind of restrictions on people being able to practice thier own beliefs. I feel the people should be allowed to practice whatever religious beliefs that they want. But they do not have the right to impose laws based on those beliefs on the rest of us. Most religious people I know personally are quite reasonable about this. It seems that there are a small, noisy minority who don't respect other people's belief systems as equal to thier own. This is what prompted my rant.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Johari MA - 06:55am Dec 16, 1997 ET (#1096 of 1100)
Gee, it seems funny that I have to elaborate 'common sense' to some people. Again, it seems very simple to see why this may have happen : bias that leads to loss of 'basic reasoning'. Cloning technology or etc new tech will effect the society. FYI (to the delusionally confused), the society is composed of believers and skeptics (in which, as I know, the believers are the MAJORITY and skeptics are minority). As the technology will have an effect to both of the groups, BOTH will have the right to say what they think should, and should not be done (implementation). The believers have their own way of making decisions, as the non believers do. While discussing such issue, everyone will say things based on their 'belief system'. While doing that, it does not (neccessarily) mean believers are 'imposing' such law to those skeptics (they are only using their voice for their right, as in voting). When there is a disagreement, in the practise of (so call) 'democracy' , we (should) set up a 'formal meeting', composing of believers and non believers (political leaders+academician), to decide 'how things should work' [as both are (what we call) 'members' of the society]. Then, take your pick (vote). Obviously, there will be disagreement, and not one 'rule' will make everyone happy. Hey, this is earth, not heaven! (The last statement, is [only] for believers, in case some minority get confused).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Johari MA - 07:06am Dec 16, 1997 ET (#1097 of 1100)
Noel Yap 12/15/97 3:08pm
NY:What about human cloning?
Noel, I'd like go give my opinon on that, but, in short, I learn from nature, and I know what is the best choice (for me)
Keith Fosberg 12/15/97 3:33pm
KF:P.S. I'm, sniffle hurt you all forgot about me!
Really Keith? mmm, don't think so. Sometimes your questions need a lot of time to be 'digested'
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fosberg - 09:39am Dec 16, 1997 ET (#1098 of 1100)
Packing material, Don't Eat!
Thanks for the support folks!
I have been trying to figure out how to objectively and concisely state my primary concern. I think I have it fleshed out now, so off I go!
The topic of "origins" has been broached on this board; It is irrelevant. The topic of religion has been broached on this board; It is also irrelevant. The topic of Federal funding has been broached on this board (by the moderators); It is irrelevant.
Looking towards quantum mechanics for inspiration I can sum up the mystery of existance as; Order springs from chaos.
The three most popular explanations for this are:
•God does it, we are just seeing the mechanics of God's hand.
•God organised the universe to work this way.
•Chaos produces everything, the order we see exists because it is the only order stable enough to continue to exist.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fosberg - 09:54am Dec 16, 1997 ET (#1099 of 1100)
Packing material, Don't Eat!
Pick your favorite. What remains is that there is a system in place that works.
As we explore the potential of the genetic sciences we are rapidly approaching the point where we can modify the system itself. The most crucial question we must answere is:
What is our primary survival trait?
Intelligence? No, other animals have greater intelligence than we, but show a lessor ability to survive. Adaptability? No, we are "middle of the pack," at best, for this trait.
Ethics. This is the trait that most strongly defines our capacity to survive. This is the basis for society, for our scientific advancement, the defining trait that describes us as a unique occurance.
Religion's primary function in society is to provide a consistant, long term ethical model for current and projected behaivior, both of the individual and of the group. We are intelligent enough, and social enough to provide other mechanisms to supply this need if we, as a social creature, desire. The question of whether religions are true or false is outside the scope of this requirement.
We certainly will modify our bodies, our minds and our society as our knowledge grows. Without a flexible and meaningfull process to develope and maintain a long and short term ethical framework for our changing society we will almost certainly engineer ourselves out of existance.
While I see fairly significant attention to that need in this forum, I do not see any evidence that this issue is being explored seriously in society in general.