Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
UM-Bot

Modified sheep is 15% human

94 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

glorybebe
I totally don't like all of the weird things that humans are doing to EVERYTHING, i.e cloning, genetically modified foods, etc. But, unless you are a hardcore vegan, it's a little ridiculous to worry about the plight of the poor sheep. If you know anything about the food processing industry at all, you know that they waste NOTHING. I worked in a seafood processing plant for two years. Everything is used, and I mean everything. Even the "sawdust" from cutting frozen swordfish steaks is squeegied off the floor, boxed up, and sold to catfood companies. This is not done out of a "waste not, want not" mentality, but for profit. The side money from the sell of scrap alone covers overhead.

My point is this. They will not just take the organs and toss the rest of the sheep away. You better believe that if doctors and scientists start harvesting organs from sheep, the rest of that sheep will be sold off to so many processing plants it'll make your head spin. Think of the real shammy you use on your car. That nice leather jacket you ordered off of QVC. The wool in your sweater, blankets, carpets etc. The meat in your dog's food. The lanolin in your moisturizers and lotions.......etc. etc. etc.

That is friggin' gross! EEwwwwww! I know that one college/university was in the news last year? (sorry, brain fart) for selling pigs that had human DNA in them. They SAID that the pigs had not entered the food chain, but I'm not willing to believe them 100%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MUM24/7

Only Aussies and Kiwi's will appreciate this !!!! :D

Now the Kiwi's will have someone to talk to after they light up..... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cadetak
I believe this is so morally wrong. I believe it is a waste of time and money. I am so sickened by this. I would never surcome to having a sheep/human organ, ohhh.

Its makes me angrey that scientist believe they can play "god" or a creator of some time.

Isnt it these people who say we have come from NATURAL EVOULTION??? Well they are interferring with their own beliefs....

Well if God isn't going to cure us our illnesses then we are obligated to do it ourselves. Why let people die when we have the technology and power to save them?

Oh and science isn't a belief system...its just science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ToxicLogic
Well if God isn't going to cure us our illnesses then we are obligated to do it ourselves. Why let people die when we have the technology and power to save them?

Oh and science isn't a belief system...its just science.

I believe the same thing, that we are obligated to cure our own illnesses, but do we need to do so at the expense of another being?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dabomb665m

First of all, obviously everyone is entitled to their own opinions and beliefs... more importantly though, we owe it to ourselves and our conscience to analyze and consider things logically regardless if theology is involved or not.

Technology as profound and as far reaching as this is naturally going to spawn many different schools of opinion right from the get go. Having said that, I would just like to come out of my hole and steer the whole discussion towards a more sensible direction as I would hate for such an interesting topic to degrade into a battle of personal beliefs. While I firmly believe the notion of God has some relevance to the topic... none of the religious concerns raised so far make any logical sense and thus aren't discussion material. Let me just say that the morality of the methods used in the topic at hand can not be argued since we as humans have been exploiting animals for as long as we have been keeping a written history and as far as evidence shows... even prior to that. You would cover more ground converting people into vegans than debating it's morality.

Likewise, claiming that it is not God's will for humans to dabble in the finer details of genetics is absurd. First of all, who get's to decide what God's will IS? The various churches can't even agree on one passage in the bibleS let alone God's will. Second of all, saying it isn't God's will for humans to do genetic engineering is to say God didn't create humans... because it is obvious we are gifted with this ability and therefore it was included as part of God's creation of humans(assuming God exists and indeed is our creator). Taking the topic into the territory of evolution has also failed in this thread. Evolution is equally as vital as God in this discussion yet it seems people are again not using logic and or are poorly misinformed.

Evolution in the traditional sense has basically transformed into something else entirely when strictly focusing on the human race. We are currently a living, active case study of the evolution of evolution. What I mean is we have conquered most of the traditional forward movers of evolution such as food competition, climate shifts, predator/prey relations etc. etc. We are an anomly of the planet and can be seen as the ultimate biological solution to survival on the planet earth. Some believe further evolution of the human race will cease to occur naturally simply because we are getting better and better at staying alive in our current physical iteration. By naturally I mean of course by means of natural selection. There is simply no prey of the human species and few conditions in which we cannot survive using our technology. Soon we will conquer disease and with our knowledge even conquer genetic imperfection. What then? Are we really still evolving in the traditional sense? At some point in the future, our only venues of further evolution will unquestionably be self-inflicted genetic modification AND OR singularity with the technology we have given birth to(which is another topic altogether).

The questions are then of course... is this path natural? Are we on the right path?

My opinion, although irrelevant... is that it most definately is natural. Regardless if we originated from God or Evolution... genetic alteration is the natural path simply because we were given the gift for it. As for using the selected animals, it's safety, and it's implications/dangers in the future... I cannot say if it is the correct path because I lack expertise in the field. I implore the rest of you to also continue discussion based on those two fundimental questions so more knowledge can be accumulated in this thread.

Edited by dabomb665m

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raptor

^Brilliant post! :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ToxicLogic
... none of the religious concerns raised so far make any logical sense and thus aren't discussion material.

Who are you to say what is and what isn't discussion material? I do believe that this is an open forum, correct? Further more, you go through your whole speech that you are going to change the direction of this thread, yet you continue with the discussion of God's role.

Evolution is equally as vital as God in this discussion yet it seems people are again not using logic and or are poorly misinformed.

Why do you have to use logic when it comes to evolution? If you believe in evolution then you don't believe that God created the world, if you believe that God created the world, then you cannot believe in evolution. How hard is that to understand? I don't believe in evolution, so why should I even bring it up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raptor
If you believe in evolution then you don't believe that God created the world, if you believe that God created the world, then you cannot believe in evolution. How hard is that to understand?

That's not true. Many of my friends believe that a God created the world, that he set everything up in order for evolution to take place.

Also, even if you examine accepted science to the strictest detail, no where does it exclude the possibility of there being a God.

Edited by Raptor X7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ToxicLogic
That's not true. Many of my friends believe that a God created the world, that he set everything up in order for evolution to take place.

Also, even if you examine accepted science to the strictest detail, no where does it exclude the possibility of there being a God.

Sorry, I was thinking of the Big Bang theory (blonde moment). I believe that God created everything, and obviously there has had to have been some kind of evolution.

But in response to dabomb665m, what does injecting human DNA into a sheep have to do with (natural) evolution? Or where you not speaking of natural evolution? Also, how is genetic alteration the natural path? Its anything but natural. If it was natural, the sheep would be naturally changing their DNA, not the scientists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raptor
Sorry, I was thinking of the Big Bang theory (blonde moment). I believe that God created everything, and obviously there has had to have been some kind of evolution.

Heh, no problem. Although there's still nothing related to the Big Bang theory to suggest that there's no god. The only problem is that there's no evidence for a god either. But it's still entirely possible to believe the two.

Edited by Raptor X7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dabomb665m
Who are you to say what is and what isn't discussion material? I do believe that this is an open forum, correct? Further more, you go through your whole speech that you are going to change the direction of this thread, yet you continue with the discussion of God's role.

Why do you have to use logic when it comes to evolution? If you believe in evolution then you don't believe that God created the world, if you believe that God created the world, then you cannot believe in evolution. How hard is that to understand? I don't believe in evolution, so why should I even bring it up?

1.) You may or may not agree with what I have mentioned to be discussion material or not, but at the very least I gave a reason for my stance on the topic at hand. No one is challenging your right to type your opinions on the board... furthermore, no one is speaking in absolutes, which is what you seem to be implying. If you don't agree with me, then that is a discussion and I welcome it full heartedly but you have yet to bring up why you feel any of the topics I deemed as "not discussion worthy" anything but otherwise. Perhaps it would be wise to begin your criticism of discussion-worthy-ness by targeting an actual segment of my arguments.

2.) Maybe you can reread my post or polish up on some reading comprehension because I never set aside logic exclusively for evolution. I believe my first sentence set the tone/grounds of my arguments... in simpler words, I basically said the accumulated information would be more useful for all of us contributing to this topic if we thought about our posts logically whether THEOLOGY IS INVOLVED OR NOT. Also, if one does believe in evolution, it does not follow that one does not believe in God. This is exactly where I'm going with my post. That statement of yours is totally illogical and is in fact counterproductive to the discussion. I can not lecture you on logic, it is up to you to learn that for yourself... but your statement is not only illogical but even goes against many modern sects of christianity and catholicism, who have gone so far as accepting evolution... as long as God is still recognized as the driving force. Perhaps you are using too narrow of a scope in your analysis and maybe your unwillingness to view both sides of the issue is clouding your judgement and imparing your logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dabomb665m
Sorry, I was thinking of the Big Bang theory (blonde moment). I believe that God created everything, and obviously there has had to have been some kind of evolution.

But in response to dabomb665m, what does injecting human DNA into a sheep have to do with (natural) evolution? Or where you not speaking of natural evolution? Also, how is genetic alteration the natural path? Its anything but natural. If it was natural, the sheep would be naturally changing their DNA, not the scientists.

Well I'm glad you are asking the right questions... but the fact that I have to explain these questions again points to the fact that you weren't reading my post. Let me give you an example of a good discussion. Let's start with the assumption of evolution giving birth to the modern man through natural selection (use wikipedia if you don't understand this concept). What does that entail? It means naturally, we evolved with the ability to go beyond our NATURAL self... because we were naturally given the brain capacity to alter genetic information and edit it as we see fit. How is it UNNATURAL in this sense?

Again, the same issue holds true in the case of God's creation of man. It is fair to assume God created man knowing full well the extent of man's reach. That reach naturally includes genetic alteration of self... of beasts... of any organic organism. If it was unnatural or if God did not intend this (as so many have tried to claim), why then was man given this gift? It follows that either it was intentional and natural... or simply God did not create man. Do you see now why saying "it is not God's intention for man to alter dna" is a fallacy?

So I say again... the discussion would do us good to ask these questions and I repeat the questions... again... Is it natural? and are we on the right path?

These questions are fundamental because it transcends the argument of God, evolution or morality because all arguments in those venues will still end up coming back to these two questions.

Edited by dabomb665m

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ToxicLogic

I don't think that you understand what I am saying. It may be natural for the human mind to develop these methods, but it is not natural for a sheep to be 15% human. I don't know what else to say to get you to understand that. Its all there. A sheep does not NATURALLY contain that human DNA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dabomb665m
I don't think that you understand what I am saying. It may be natural for the human mind to develop these methods, but it is not natural for a sheep to be 15% human. I don't know what else to say to get you to understand that. Its all there. A sheep does not NATURALLY contain that human DNA.

I fully understand your stance... what I think is going on is you don't understand that my stance is more broad in that it includes earth and it's ecosystem as a whole. Let me ask you this... Is it natural for cows, pigs, chickens, sheep, lamb or any domesticated animals to be... domesticated? Considering the history of life on earth, do you think it is natural for one living organism to live completely unchallenged by the rest of the habitat? Can you think of another living organism on earth quite like us? We are part of the planet, the planet spawned us... or God spawned the planet, and then spawned us. Either way, whatever happens on this planet is natural, it doesn't matter who does what to who... or who does what to what animal. What ever can happen, will happen...

Your definition of natural is relative to each individual "thing" (sheep or otherwise) and based off what you think is a static history on the planet earth when the truth is far beyond that. The earth is and always has been changing and the living organisms have done amazing things to survive to this day. It just so happens that earth naturally spawned a being that is capable of modifying things beyond the possible. The fact that that being (humans) is part of this earth as a whole and was given the power to do these things makes it natural in the grand scheme of things. Yes, if you are strictly talking about the sheep... and the sheep alone living on the planet by themselves... then it is unnatural, but we all know that isn't the case. Humans are a natural occurance on earth and as such, their ability to modify the earth and it's surrounding (living and non living) is natural.

Now see? That is my stance... you may or may not agree with it... but what we just did there was discuss in a healthy fashion without clouding the facts with illogical thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ToxicLogic

I understand what you are saying, I just can't make sense of it. So according to you anything that happens is natural. So, a man goes to a surgeon, says "cut off my penis and make it into a vagina." When he is done, he is a natural woman? I think not.

nat·u·ral(nchr-l, nchrl)

adj.

c. Biology Not produced or changed artificially; not conditioned: natural immunity; a natural reflex.

6. Not altered, treated, or disguised:

Source

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dabomb665m
I understand what you are saying, I just can't make sense of it. So according to you anything that happens is natural. So, a man goes to a surgeon, says "cut off my penis and make it into a vagina." When he is done, he is a natural woman? I think not.

Source

I guess that is taking an example to a sensitive extreme to complicate the argument.. You are taking the word natural out of context. The difference you are making here is once again something static and easily gauged (ie, man asking for a sex change) vs what I am saying, something dynamic... an act set in motion. Simply put, with the standard definition of natural, a genetically modified sheep is not a natural sheep(static). You're right, it's not, if u compare it statically to a normal sheep. BUT, the existance of that modified sheep is a natural occurance (the dynamic part) because it occured due to nature's animal acting on another one of nature's animals. I don't know of a better way to explain the difference here...

I never argued that the modified sheep is natural in itself. I was clearly refering to the act of creating it as a natural occurance.

Edited by dabomb665m

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ToxicLogic

Will someone please help me! Or am I going crazy?

I am not taking the word natural out of context. I am taking the word natural for what it is. And I am sorry, but I do not believe that the act of ADDING DNA is natural. How is it natural? You are altering the animal, its not naturally producing human DNA.

So going back to my last post, you are saying that the man removing his penis and altering his genitalia to be that of a womans is not natural, but the surgeon preforming this surgery is doing a natural act? NO! :no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dabomb665m
Will someone please help me! Or am I going crazy?

I am not taking the word natural out of context. I am taking the word natural for what it is. And I am sorry, but I do not believe that the act of ADDING DNA is natural. How is it natural? You are altering the animal, its not naturally producing human DNA.

So going back to my last post, you are saying that the man removing his penis and altering his genitalia to be that of a womans is not natural, but the surgeon preforming this surgery is doing a natural act? NO! :no:

Taking the word natural for "what it is" instead of taking it INTO context is the exact same thing as taking a word OUT of context. Your thought process is stuck here and therefore this discussion between you and I can move no further.

Assuming event X occurs on earth where X is any event possible... how do you judge event X to be natural or not? Do you compare earth relative to ANOTHER PLANET SIMILAR TO EARTH called Vearth? You can't because we know of NO SUCH planet to make such a comparison. In the STATIC AND INDIVIDUALISTIC case of a modified sheep vs a regular sheep... or a modified woman vs a natural woman, it's clear cut, there is DIRECT comparison. But again, I'm asking you to keep stepping back to see the grand scheme of things. If this doesn't do it, then you need not reply. Your word natural is not absolute because it simply can't be applied to everything, especially a whole planet like earth. "Natural" assumes a relation relative to something. We have nothing else to compare earth with so any action on earth would be natural until proven otherwise. Find me that other planet.

Edited by dabomb665m

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ToxicLogic
so any action on earth would be natural

First of all, how is ANY action on Earth natural? As I have already proven and you have admitted to, there are actions that are not natural.

the existance of that modified sheep is a natural occurance

Second of all, your statement is contridicts itself, it is impossible for something to be modified as the sheep is and still be natural, it defies the definition of natural.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
glorybebe
First of all, how is ANY action on Earth natural? As I have already proven and you have admitted to, there are actions that are not natural.

Second of all, your statement is contridicts itself, it is impossible for something to be modified as the sheep is and still be natural, it defies the definition of natural.

"Nature" refers to the phenomena of the physical world, and also to life in general. The term generally does not include manufactured objects and human interaction" Therefore, one animal doing something to modify another animal does not make it natural. It would not NATURALLY occur if humans were to bread with sheep, which is impossible in the natural world. There is no way that the merging of human DNA and sheep DNA is natural, in my opinion, and that of many scientists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
__Kratos__
If God had wanted humans to be able to harvest organs from sheep, he would've made the sheep naturally compatible. Don't think that I don't see the benefits in this, more people will get the organs they need, but I think that in the end, the negatives are going to outweigh the positives.

So if there is a god, you know what he is thinking now as well? For all we know he gave mankind the knowledge to break out and learn more about the world around them. If god didn't want this to happen, surely an all mighty and all powerful being could limit some mortal men with their knowledge. Or at least an all mighty and all powerful god could smite the researchers on this project as a warning... Right? Not even a blink of work for such a powerful being. :)

Negatives? From what I'm getting at this research is aiming at giving people a better life. If there are problems, it won't go further then it has to. I'm sure there are a lot of wary eyes on this project as we speak.

Plus, it's not like religion has ever given the human race anything worthy, so bringing god up into the discussion when god offers nothing to help, is quite irresponsible.

Edited by __Kratos__

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desert Moon

We are completely unstoppable. What’s next? Amalgamating Men with Lions? The Sphinx lives!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cadetak
I believe the same thing, that we are obligated to cure our own illnesses, but do we need to do so at the expense of another being?

You mean the sheep?

We have always lived at the expense of another being. We kill cows so we can eat...we experimented on a sheep so we can cure illness. Same basic idea.

As long as there wasn't uneccesary "cruel and unuall punishment" to the sheep I'm all for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dabomb665m
"Nature" refers to the phenomena of the physical world, and also to life in general. The term generally does not include manufactured objects and human interaction" Therefore, one animal doing something to modify another animal does not make it natural. It would not NATURALLY occur if humans were to bread with sheep, which is impossible in the natural world. There is no way that the merging of human DNA and sheep DNA is natural, in my opinion, and that of many scientists.

You see, this is where I disagree with toxiclogic and you as well. Your discussions of the topic still hold a moral layer to it, something which I try to avoid. There would be much contradiction if one would eat meat but defy genetic engineering because in both cases an animal is being compromised for the sake of humanity. Now, why do I feel there is some sort of moral layer/code being enforced on humans masked in your opinion? You say: "Nature refers to the phenomena of the physical world... and also life in general. It does not include manufactured objects/human interaction". That seems to be what toxiclogic is saying as well. It's holding humans to a higher moral standard and assumes human's transcend all beings on the planet.

So let me ask you this... when a cheetah chases and hunts down a yack, is that an occurance of nature? If your answer is yes, then how can you say any action humans make to be an unnatural occurance? Broken logic! Are you basically saying that humans are an unnatural existance? Your previous statements have been stating that humans are natural (god or evolution or both) YET human actions are not natural. That is where the contradiction in the logic occurs in my opinion. There are indeed many scientists who believe many things are unnatural, but I believe they suffer the same delusion/broken logic. Humans are not special... we are part of the planet physically, spawned on the planet, and will return to the planet(physically).

IF however, you guys think humans are an unnatural case of existence then I can see where your belief of these actions to be unnatural in nature stems from. That then is a different discussion altogether and again brings me back to my FIRST post on this forum... two things can't be discussed if mutual logical assumptions aren't made before hand. Without logic, It would just be a war of opinions that never ends. Usually that leads to wars of the physical kind as well. You then, are not discussing the natural-ity (for lack of a better word) of these genetic modifications but instead are debating the nature of human existance... So what is it, are we natural or not?

Edited by dabomb665m

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc

Baaaa...

How fitting....human sheep... pretty much says it all doesn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.