4 ms·

I think it's more of the fact that they were conceived which will bother most. A sperm on its own was never going to be a person. A egg on its own was never go

I think it's more of the fact that they were conceived which will bother most. A sperm on its own was never going to be a person. A egg on its own was never going to be a person. A embryo... we cause the sparks to fly here and it's disturbing to think we can poke at the genes when we really have no idea what we are doing. Was a soul created here? Lot of people think yes. So lots of people naturally care about that taking place. Just to poke and prod 1 of billions of base pairs to see what happens does not seem like a good idea or..even a practical way to learn anything. I would bargain there are a lot more pairs you could mess with that would have the same effect and would prevent the embryo from developing further. I lean that we most likely are creating souls (however that works...) the moment of conception and we probably should be fooling around with doing this stuff. This article reminded me of this video I saw 10 years ago that shows there is a moment in time where sparks literally fly and it's pretty amazing to see. https://vimeo.com/163864531 https://vimeo.com/163864531

efnx 3mo ago
So do all sexually reproducing species’ conception create souls? Or is it just a blessed few? What about asexually reproducing species?
- smalltorch 3mo ago
  >So do all sexually reproducing species’ conception create souls? No, what is your opinion? >Or is it just a blessed few? Specifically humans. >What about asexually reproducing species? They have life that's for sure but I think it's very different than humans.
  - iknowstuff 3mo ago
    you can't seriously think there is a line in the sand between homo sapiens and heidelbergensis or neanderthals which demarcates "soul" and "no soul". Especially since the latter interbred with humans.
    - pizzafeelsright 3mo ago
      what if heidelbergensis and other ancestors didn't exist but were written in a books by people you never met and any amount of questioning was frowned upon? do you believe in the relics never seen and take the word upon a class of believers that safeguard the history? sounds like a religion to me.
      - iknowstuff 3mo ago
        visit a museum
    - smalltorch 3mo ago
      Are there any species you know of that would be able to interbred with each other? Why would that have been possible? Sounds like humans to me, perhaps ones who could live longer? Look, I think we know how these discussions go, I'm not sure they get anywhere. Your pretty sure you know what's going on, I'm pretty sure I know what's going on... Id hope there would be caution in manipulating the formation of a human when there isn't a great way to test these things without observing the results after they are born without any significant confidence what was manipulated effected the outcome or had a desirable result. There is no world where this real world testing is not reckless.
      - gherkinnn 3mo ago
        > Are there any species you know of that would be able to interbred with each other? Yes, it is called hybridisation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_(biology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_(biology)
      - deleted 3mo ago
        [deleted]
  - melagonster 3mo ago
    Unfortunately, we found that there are not so many differences. Scientists have simply decided not to cross that line.
whatever1 3mo ago
Embryos have to reset after conception to delete all of the faulty dna inherited from the parents. Babies don’t get born with wrinkles for example. They start clean slate without (most) epigenetic damage that both sperm and egg had. So the embryo a 10 days after conception is not the same thing as at conception. Did God kill it?
- fc417fc802 3mo ago
  Do you have more information or citations related to epigenetic damage in the sperm and egg? A lot of age related dysfunction is systemic as opposed to genetic. Even for the stuff that's (epi)genetic in nature it's important to bear in mind that each cell has its own independent copy.
  - whatever1 3mo ago
    There is a nice podcast from the NYtimes daily podcast named: “can we reverse aging?” that covers a lot of this. (Obviously when we discovered the reset mechanism people started asking why we cannot press the reset button at 70yo)
    - fc417fc802 3mo ago
      I'm not interested in an arbitrarily open ended reading assignment but rather am asking if you can provide even a vague pointer to evidence of this because it doesn't match my understanding of how these things work. I know for a fact that epigenetic material isn't magically reset to some prior state in a blanket manner because changes to the epigenome based on the environmental conditions in which the parents are born and raised are heritable by their children. For example widespread famine has been shown to leave changes in the epigenome that remain for at least several generations.
      - whatever1 3mo ago
        I am not interested in teaching you how to google. I gave you pointers and keywords. Now you have to go read. Good luck.
FuckButtons 3mo ago
I will never understand this mindset. What exactly do you think primary scientific research is if not collecting data on questions to which you do not know the answer? How are you supposed to get data to said questions without observing the actual events? I suppose you’re sanguine with the idea of letting future generations of children be born with potentially preventable genetic disorders based on your squeamishness?
- smalltorch 3mo ago
  Lots of breakthroughs in medicine happen without editing genes? And why do you think Im opposed to the scientific method based on this view point that maybe experimenting on human embryos is not a great way to learn stuff? For example, what happens when we get to the point where we need to use the scientific method to test if the gene editing was successful and didn't cause negative outcomes for the child's entire existence perhaps? Will they need to live their whole life for us to confirm the cure worked?
  - halfxing 3mo ago
    > Lots of breakthroughs in medicine happen without editing genes? Why would the presence of breakthroughs in medicine on other fronts mean that we shouldn't try gene editing? > what happens when we get to the point where we need to use the scientific method to test if the gene editing was successful and didn't cause negative outcomes for the child's entire existence perhaps? That is what clinical trials do today for medicine. Are you opposed to those as well? Many have died and many have been saved in the pursuit of better care.
  - XorNot 3mo ago
    > For example, what happens when we get to the point where we need to use the scientific method to test if the gene editing was successful and didn't cause negative outcomes for the child's entire existence perhaps? Well that would be an entirely different line of research, which is not this research here, and a large expansion of the question which we could debate and discuss thoroughly on its own merits at such a time as the issue arises. Aka this is just the slippery slope fallacy of argument.
Refreeze5224 3mo ago
> I lean that we most likely are creating souls (however that works...) You might want to flesh this part out a bit more before criticizing scientists tweaking some cell clumps.

efnx 3mo ago

So do all sexually reproducing species’ conception create souls? Or is it just a blessed few? What about asexually reproducing species?

smalltorch 3mo ago
>So do all sexually reproducing species’ conception create souls? No, what is your opinion? >Or is it just a blessed few? Specifically humans. >What about asexually reproducing species? They have life that's for sure but I think it's very different than humans.
- iknowstuff 3mo ago
  you can't seriously think there is a line in the sand between homo sapiens and heidelbergensis or neanderthals which demarcates "soul" and "no soul". Especially since the latter interbred with humans.
  - pizzafeelsright 3mo ago
    what if heidelbergensis and other ancestors didn't exist but were written in a books by people you never met and any amount of questioning was frowned upon? do you believe in the relics never seen and take the word upon a class of believers that safeguard the history? sounds like a religion to me.
    - iknowstuff 3mo ago
      visit a museum
  - smalltorch 3mo ago
    Are there any species you know of that would be able to interbred with each other? Why would that have been possible? Sounds like humans to me, perhaps ones who could live longer? Look, I think we know how these discussions go, I'm not sure they get anywhere. Your pretty sure you know what's going on, I'm pretty sure I know what's going on... Id hope there would be caution in manipulating the formation of a human when there isn't a great way to test these things without observing the results after they are born without any significant confidence what was manipulated effected the outcome or had a desirable result. There is no world where this real world testing is not reckless.
    - gherkinnn 3mo ago
      > Are there any species you know of that would be able to interbred with each other? Yes, it is called hybridisation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_(biology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_(biology)
    - deleted 3mo ago
      [deleted]
- melagonster 3mo ago
  Unfortunately, we found that there are not so many differences. Scientists have simply decided not to cross that line.

whatever1 3mo ago

Embryos have to reset after conception to delete all of the faulty dna inherited from the parents. Babies don’t get born with wrinkles for example. They start clean slate without (most) epigenetic damage that both sperm and egg had. So the embryo a 10 days after conception is not the same thing as at conception. Did God kill it?

fc417fc802 3mo ago
Do you have more information or citations related to epigenetic damage in the sperm and egg? A lot of age related dysfunction is systemic as opposed to genetic. Even for the stuff that's (epi)genetic in nature it's important to bear in mind that each cell has its own independent copy.
- whatever1 3mo ago
  There is a nice podcast from the NYtimes daily podcast named: “can we reverse aging?” that covers a lot of this. (Obviously when we discovered the reset mechanism people started asking why we cannot press the reset button at 70yo)
  - fc417fc802 3mo ago
    I'm not interested in an arbitrarily open ended reading assignment but rather am asking if you can provide even a vague pointer to evidence of this because it doesn't match my understanding of how these things work. I know for a fact that epigenetic material isn't magically reset to some prior state in a blanket manner because changes to the epigenome based on the environmental conditions in which the parents are born and raised are heritable by their children. For example widespread famine has been shown to leave changes in the epigenome that remain for at least several generations.
    - whatever1 3mo ago
      I am not interested in teaching you how to google. I gave you pointers and keywords. Now you have to go read. Good luck.

FuckButtons 3mo ago

I will never understand this mindset. What exactly do you think primary scientific research is if not collecting data on questions to which you do not know the answer? How are you supposed to get data to said questions without observing the actual events? I suppose you’re sanguine with the idea of letting future generations of children be born with potentially preventable genetic disorders based on your squeamishness?

smalltorch 3mo ago
Lots of breakthroughs in medicine happen without editing genes? And why do you think Im opposed to the scientific method based on this view point that maybe experimenting on human embryos is not a great way to learn stuff? For example, what happens when we get to the point where we need to use the scientific method to test if the gene editing was successful and didn't cause negative outcomes for the child's entire existence perhaps? Will they need to live their whole life for us to confirm the cure worked?
- halfxing 3mo ago
  > Lots of breakthroughs in medicine happen without editing genes? Why would the presence of breakthroughs in medicine on other fronts mean that we shouldn't try gene editing? > what happens when we get to the point where we need to use the scientific method to test if the gene editing was successful and didn't cause negative outcomes for the child's entire existence perhaps? That is what clinical trials do today for medicine. Are you opposed to those as well? Many have died and many have been saved in the pursuit of better care.
- XorNot 3mo ago
  > For example, what happens when we get to the point where we need to use the scientific method to test if the gene editing was successful and didn't cause negative outcomes for the child's entire existence perhaps? Well that would be an entirely different line of research, which is not this research here, and a large expansion of the question which we could debate and discuss thoroughly on its own merits at such a time as the issue arises. Aka this is just the slippery slope fallacy of argument.

Refreeze5224 3mo ago

> I lean that we most likely are creating souls (however that works...) You might want to flesh this part out a bit more before criticizing scientists tweaking some cell clumps.