T1B

I see the Lab Rat is around this morning, so maybe he can answer a question for me. As I understand it, stem cells can replicate most any other kind of cells. Wouldn’t this make them the bestest option for breast augmentation? Just add a bunch more breast cells to existing breasts?

Goober McTuber wrote:I see the Lab Rat is around this morning, so maybe he can answer a question for me. As I understand it, stem cells can replicate most any other kind of cells. Wouldn’t this make them the bestest option for breast augmentation? Just add a bunch more breast cells to existing breasts?

To be honest, we don't know what the hell we're doing with stem cells. Yeah, they're pluripotent and all that, but we haven't really got a grip on how all the genetic master-switches that determine what the cells turn into flip on and off. I've heard tales of them growing "ear" in a Petri dish but haven't had the time/interest to see if that's true. We don't know what the little buggers will do over the long term or what cell chemicals are needed to keep them from going all "hinky" (e.g., cancer, spreading to where they weren't supposed to go, etc.). That's one of the reasons, IMNSHO, we need to do more research. We don't really know if it'll work the way we want, but neither do we know if it's a dead end.

Your idea of using stem cells for breast augmentation sounds scientifically feasible...but I'm guessing that the "microscopic cell = full human being" folks would absolutely go apeshit if doctors used stem cells to make some stripper go up a cup size.

I have a great pic of a typical embryo used for stem cells that I cut out of a National Geographic article. It shows this little ball, sitting in -and dwarfed by- the eye of a frigging needle. I use the pic to show kids and their parents just what it is we're arguing about as a society. It turns out that a hell of a lot of scientifically-illiterate morons are running around thinking that we get stem cells from aborted fetuses or that the embryos look like little shrimplike critters. It doesn't change the mind of folks who believe that full human life begins at conception (and that's not my point in showing the pic), but it does better inform folks so that they stop spreading misconceptions/lies about what the embryos are and where they came from. Some folks have actually decided to go "pro-stem cell" once they face their misconceptions and see what the embryo looks like and know its source.

You'll burn in Hell, sinner.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:To be honest, we don't know what the hell we're doing with stem cells. Yeah, they're pluripotent and all that, but we haven't really got a grip on how all the genetic master-switches that determine what the cells turn into flip on and off. I've heard tales of them growing "ear" in a Petri dish but haven't had the time/interest to see if that's true. We don't know what the little buggers will do over the long term or what cell chemicals are needed to keep them from going all "hinky" (e.g., cancer, spreading to where they weren't supposed to go, etc.). That's one of the reasons, IMNSHO, we need to do more research. We don't really know if it'll work the way we want, but neither do we know if it's a dead end.

This is exactly why the politicization of stem cells is so irresponsible. You have clueless chuckleheads on both sides either foaming at the mouth about killing babies or falsely promising that grandpa will stop shitting his drawers if you inject a few stem cells in his skull. As Mike stated, more research is needed. I don’t keep up with the literature, but I believe researchers are still attempting to understand genetic and cellular changes to ES cells following high passage. There is still a ton of research to be done before therapeutic applications are prevalent.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:I see the Lab Rat is around this morning, so maybe he can answer a question for me. As I understand it, stem cells can replicate most any other kind of cells. Wouldn’t this make them the bestest option for breast augmentation? Just add a bunch more breast cells to existing breasts?

To be honest, we don't know what the hell we're doing with stem cells. Yeah, they're pluripotent and all that, but we haven't really got a grip on how all the genetic master-switches that determine what the cells turn into flip on and off. I've heard tales of them growing "ear" in a Petri dish but haven't had the time/interest to see if that's true. We don't know what the little buggers will do over the long term or what cell chemicals are needed to keep them from going all "hinky" (e.g., cancer, spreading to where they weren't supposed to go, etc.). That's one of the reasons, IMNSHO, we need to do more research. We don't really know if it'll work the way we want, but neither do we know if it's a dead end.

Your idea of using stem cells for breast augmentation sounds scientifically feasible...but I'm guessing that the "microscopic cell = full human being" folks would absolutely go apeshit if doctors used stem cells to make some stripper go up a cup size.

I have a great pic of a typical embryo used for stem cells that I cut out of a National Geographic article. It shows this little ball, sitting in -and dwarfed by- the eye of a frigging needle. I use the pic to show kids and their parents just what it is we're arguing about as a society. It turns out that a hell of a lot of scientifically-illiterate morons are running around thinking that we get stem cells from aborted fetuses or that the embryos look like little shrimplike critters. It doesn't change the mind of folks who believe that full human life begins at conception (and that's not my point in showing the pic), but it does better inform folks so that they stop spreading misconceptions/lies about what the embryos are and where they came from. Some folks have actually decided to go "pro-stem cell" once they face their misconceptions and see what the embryo looks like and know its source.

This kind of clear thinking, intellectually honest post has no place on T1B.

See You Next Wednesday wrote: This kind of clear thinking, intellectually honest post has not place on T1B.

Yes and no...

In its current form, the post you cite is completely inappropriate.

But if he were to clean it up, and carefully insert a few references to "you flaming fucktards," and "since everyone on this board is a fucking moron," then it would have been $$$.


I'm getting just about tired of Lab Rat's well thought-out, well-written, unbiased bullshit. I demand to be called an idiot by the guy before I read another one of his intelligent replies.

Another rack for MLTR -

If we ever have like, debate wars or something with other boards, I nominate Mike to hold the TIB banner

You all are racking the guy for putting the kibosh on large natural breastesses? You all would be singing a different tune if he pooh-poohed the idea of using stem cells to puff up your boy-toys’ meatwhistles. Tim Hardaway hates every last one of you.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:It doesn't change the mind of folks who believe that full human life begins at conception (and that's not my point in showing the pic)

So when does that begin ?

Jsc810 wrote:

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:I have a great pic of a typical embryo used for stem cells that I cut out of a National Geographic article. It shows this little ball, sitting in -and dwarfed by- the eye of a frigging needle. I use the pic to show kids and their parents just what it is we're arguing about as a society. It turns out that a hell of a lot of scientifically-illiterate morons are running around thinking that we get stem cells from aborted fetuses or that the embryos look like little shrimplike critters. It doesn't change the mind of folks who believe that full human life begins at conception (and that's not my point in showing the pic), but it does better inform folks so that they stop spreading misconceptions/lies about what the embryos are and where they came from. Some folks have actually decided to go "pro-stem cell" once they face their misconceptions and see what the embryo looks like and know its source.

Also, if there is a way to post that pic, I'd like to see it.

http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/ ... extra.html

Tom In VA wrote:

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:It doesn't change the mind of folks who believe that full human life begins at conception (and that's not my point in showing the pic)

So when does that begin ?

For most of the losers on this board, never.


Edit to try and clue in Tom.

Goober McTuber wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:It doesn't change the mind of folks who believe that full human life begins at conception (and that's not my point in showing the pic)

So when does that begin ?

For most of the losers on this board, never.

Rackage

Has science, other than Doctors Goobs and KCScott come to a conclusion when human life begins ? How about a bears' life even ?

Tom In VA wrote:Has science, other than Doctors Goobs and KCScott come to a conclusion when human life begins ? How about a bears' life even ?

Goob's was making the joke that some of the board denizens don't have a li.....

errr..... just forget it Tom

KC Scott wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:Has science, other than Doctors Goobs and KCScott come to a conclusion when human life begins ? How about a bears' life even ?

Goob's was making the joke that some of the board denizens don't have a li.....

errr..... just forget it Tom

Dude I got the funnay. I'm also tunin' into yours, but I was rephrasing my question because I'm also interested in a semi-serious answer as well. MtLR and others contribute sound, well thought out answers and I'd be curious to hear the angles on this question or even if there is some sort of de-facto answer that science has found.

Your one of those pro-life types aren't you?

I see you working

KC Scott wrote:Your one of those pro-life types aren't you?

I see you working

Nonsense. I'm as "pro-choice" as George Carlin.

Science doesn't have an answer. Probably never will. I'd argue that it is way outside the rightful scope of science to attempt to determine the definition of "humanity," what that entails (inalienable rights and all that), and when it truly begins. Any scientist who tries to argue one way or the other is giving their personal/religious opinion, not an objective scientific conclusion.

Any decision on the definitive starting point for full "humanity" will have to come from a consensus of society. Good luck with THAT...

Mike,

Can you tell us, in simple terms - How was the universe created?

TIA

KC Scott wrote:Mike,

Can you tell us, in simple terms - How was the universe created?

That's physics.

I hate physics. It involves a lot of pointless math, and most physics teachers are pricks.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:Science doesn't have an answer. Probably never will. I'd argue that it is way outside the rightful scope of science to attempt to determine the definition of "humanity," what that entails (inalienable rights and all that), and when it truly begins. Any scientist who tries to argue one way or the other is giving their personal/religious opinion, not an objective scientific conclusion.

Any decision on the definitive starting point for full "humanity" will have to come from a consensus of society. Good luck with THAT...

Thanks for the answer, but I wasn't really referring to the sociological/philosophical etc.. etc.. definition of "humanity" as much as a biological one. Has science said "This is not human until ..... "

Hell, take "human" out of it, does science say that the "thing" inside a female cat is not a cat ?

Tom In VA wrote:Thanks for the answer, but I wasn't really referring to the sociological definition of "humanity" as much as a biological one. Has science said "This is not human until ..... "

Hell, take "human" out of it, does science say that the "thing" inside a female cat is not a cat ?

They can look at the chromosomes and say, "Yep, it's human DNA" or "Yep, it's a human cell."

Hell, I (or any of you guys) can do a DNA extraction of your own cheek cells using about 10 cc of saline, spitting it in a tube, mixing in some dish soap, and then layering ice-cold rubbing alcohol over the mix. Your DNA is at the interface between the saline and alcohol layers. We could take that and say - "Yep, it's human DNA" It's got the instructions to make a whole other you.

But it ain't you.

The definition of "humanity" is not a scientific question. Science can tell you what an embryo / fetus can and cannot do at any stage. It can give you a complete physical description. But to describe when "life" or "humanity" begins is a philosophical question. Define your terms Tom. What do you mean, exactly, by "humanity" and science can tell you when it begins.

So at it's essence it is human.


"But it ain't you."

And this assertion can be explained scientifically ? Or are you tempering your answers on purpose to reflect back that the human defintion of what is "human" is subjective and involves more "esoteric" factors, not the least of which being "desire".

Jsc810 wrote:Fwiiw, the law has had at least as much trouble as science has had in trying to define when life begins.

Well, I don't think there is any question that the "tissue" within an embryo is alive. It's living tissue, if it were not, then what use would it be ?


Unfortunately the "Law" and it's track record of determining what is human and what is not, doesn't have the best track record throughout history. But lawmakers are self serving liars, we all know that. I am talking about SCIENCE.

The skin on the inside of my mouth is alive too. Is it any less human than the "tissue within an embryo"? If I bite my lip and spit some of it out is that murder?

I'm talking science here. At least as much as you are.

Mikey wrote:The skin on the inside of my mouth is alive too.

Talkin dirty to me now huh ? lol.

I'm honestly not alluding to "murder". The tissue, at it's essence is human tissue, so is a dismembered arm, I get that. For that matter, so are the remains of the dead ... even though that tissue is not "alive".

My question is this, upon what basis can it be said, that this "tissue" can be managed and exploited for our own convenience ? If the answer is "There is no scientific basis, it is entirely subjective and the justification behind our rationale is the following...." .... Then that's the answer I'd like to hear, because that would be the truth.

The problem is I don't hear answers and arguments made with that that qualifier. Far too often it is framed within the shroud of "science" in order to obfuscate the fact there is no scientific basis whatsoever.

That's what I'm getting at Mikey and MtLR. Don't get me wrong, I believe the contradictory point of view should be "tinged" with the same qualifier. I have no scientific proof that life begins at conception, or EVEN to put it back within context of "stem cells" if making embryos in a lab environment can even be considered "conception" if in fact life did begin at conception.

The thing that I find most compelling in all of this though is the "unexplained" ingredient. Right or wrong, it furthers my belief that science and "spirituality" (to keep it nondenominational) do not negate each other one bit.

Tom In VA wrote:So at it's essence it is human.


"But it ain't you."

And this assertion can be explained scientifically ? Or are you tempering your answers on purpose to reflect back that the human defintion of what is "human" is subjective and involves more "esoteric" factors, not the least of which being "desire".

Your DNA is the instructions to MAKE you. You leave it all over the place. Hell, you shed about 1.5 million skin cells an hour, and each one of them has the instructions to make you. Every one of the at least 70 trillion cells of your body has ALL the instructions to make a complete you. That doesn't make any one individual cell a human being. And your DNA is by NO definition "alive."

As far as whether and how tissue is "exploited," that is, once again, something with which society must deal. We don't have a problem with organ DONATION, but if someone puts a kidney up for auction at eBay, it's "unethical." We're still wrangling with egg donation and how to compensate the donors (and those things are only haploid...).

Science cannot answer moral or religious or philosophical questions...that is not within its scope. If some findings of science are used by religious folks, ethicists, philosophers to HELP make their own points, well, then...that's fine, I guess, as long as those people realize that there's a damned good reason why good science has tried not to delve into the humanities. Our culture has not had a very good track record of mixing half-assed understandings of science with policy.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote: If some findings of science are used by religious folks, ethicists, philosophers to HELP make their own points, well, then...that's fine, I guess, as long as those people realize that there's a damned good reason why good science has tried not to delve into the humanities. Our culture has not had a very good track record of mixing half-assed understandings of science with policy.

Not sure what you mean by "our culture", but will assume you mean human culture. But unless I misunderstood your quote below ....

I have a great pic of a typical embryo used for stem cells that I cut out of a National Geographic article. It shows this little ball, sitting in -and dwarfed by- the eye of a frigging needle. I use the pic to show kids and their parents just what it is we're arguing about as a society. It turns out that a hell of a lot of scientifically-illiterate morons are running around thinking that we get stem cells from aborted fetuses or that the embryos look like little shrimplike critters. It doesn't change the mind of folks who believe that full human life begins at conception (and that's not my point in showing the pic), but it does better inform folks so that they stop spreading misconceptions/lies about what the embryos are and where they came from. Some folks have actually decided to go "pro-stem cell" once they face their misconceptions and see what the embryo looks like and know its source.

You have attempted to use science right here to bolster the argument that we're not dealing with a "human", while it is a human embryo, consisting of human DNA.

I have no problem with it at all Mike. None at all. But what I'm getting at is that YOU, are in fact, doing what you claim the "religious folks, ethicists, philosophers to HELP make their own points" do.

I mean, why show the picture ?

Tom In VA wrote:I mean, why show the picture ?

Because every stinking semester, I have students, parents, and other people outside school who insist that stem cells are derived from aborted fetuses.

For some individuals, the reality of the size and origin of the embryo makes a difference. For others (including my Roman Catholic students/parents, e.g.) it doesn't. But at least after talking to me, they're not making completely inaccurate arguments in defending their views.

If you believe that human life begins at conception, than the photo makes no difference. Or, at least it shouldn't.

I have absolutely agenda other than making my fellow American citizen more scientifically literate.

Dinsdale wrote: I'm getting just about tired of Lab Rat's well thought-out, well-written, unbiased bullshit. I demand to be called an idiot by the guy before I read another one of his intelligent replies.

Me too.

Wait, he's already done that (in so many words) more than once, and on more than T1B. Just offer to set-up a JW Red, neat, and you'll be fine Dins.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:I mean, why show the picture ?

Because every stinking semester, I have students, parents, and other people outside school who insist that stem cells are derived from aborted fetuses.

For some individuals, the reality of the size and origin of the embryo makes a difference. For others (including my Roman Catholic students/parents, e.g.) it doesn't. But at least after talking to me, they're not making completely inaccurate arguments in defending their views.

If you believe that human life begins at conception, than the photo makes no difference. Or, at least it shouldn't.

I have absolutely agenda other than making my fellow American citizen more scientifically literate.

MtLR,

With all due respect, it has nothing to do with what I believe at all. Your answer WAS that science cannot determine if "human life" exists in that "shrimplike critter". But it appears to me that you, a SCIENTIFICALLY TRAINED EDUCATOR; and with respect to me a far more superior authority on SCIENCE, are in fact using that position to assert a position.

It's impled in your tone MtLR, that those that lack scientific "literacy" or knowledge would claim "life exists therefore stem are bad, mkay". You display the picture and address "misconceptions" and when those people "face those misconceptions" they change their position and become "pro stem cell".

When I asked you about the scientific data that confirms or denies if "life exists" you said none exists and deferred that to the "humanities". Yet apparently their is data. This data does not deal with the essence of the substance, which is human, we agree on that. But rather the attributes of that substance, not the least of which are appearance, size, and shape. Which is why I guess, you display a picture.


As for my opinion and my belief. The answer is "I don't know what I believe". But you've allowed me to gather the following facts. Once again. The essence of the substance at hand is human and it's the attributes of that substance that allow us to make decisions. So far these attributes are size, shape, ability to function in a predefined role, etc.. etc..

I've also learned that science makes no claim as to whether or not it KNOWS where life begins. But that scientists and science teachers will teach their students that it does and use science to sway issues that are better dealt with in the "humanities".

I find your argument very subjective but have enjoyed the discussion as a whole. Thanks.

Huge RACK for Mike, who is always a great read.

Tom In VA wrote:
With all due respect, it has nothing to do with what I believe at all. Your answer WAS that science cannot determine if "human life" exists in that "shrimplike critter". But it appears to me that you, a SCIENTIFICALLY TRAINED EDUCATOR; and with respect to me a far more superior authority on SCIENCE, are in fact using that position to assert a position.

Nope - other than if one's stand on the issue is based on faulty scientific information, then giving folks the correct information is part of my job.

Tom In VA wrote:It's impled in your tone MtLR, that those that lack scientific "literacy" or knowledge would claim "life exists therefore stem are bad, mkay". You display the picture and address "misconceptions" and when those people "face those misconceptions" they change their position and become "pro stem cell".

I said that SOME do. Those individuals, for example, that based their argument on the misconception that stem cells are from aborted fetuses. As I clearly stated before, those folks who hold that life begins at conception don't -and (as I said before) shouldn't- change their minds.

Tom In VA wrote:When I asked you about the scientific data that confirms or denies if "life exists" you said none exists and deferred that to the "humanities". Yet apparently their is data. This data does not deal with the essence of the substance, which is human, we agree on that. But rather the attributes of that substance, not the least of which are appearance, size, and shape. Which is why I guess, you display a picture.

The picture is not about whether the embryo is human or not. It is about presenting the factual data in a form easily understood. I could have given the information verbally, referring to the embryo as a "ball of cells," but that phrase has been characterized by stem cell research opponents as value-laden. I show a picture and let folks make up their own mind.

Tom In VA wrote:As for my opinion and my belief. The answer is "I don't know what I believe". But you've allowed me to gather the following facts. Once again. The essence of the substance at hand is human and it's the attributes of that substance that allow us to make decisions. So far these attributes are size, shape, ability to function in a predefined role, etc.. etc..

The "essence" is perhaps one of the debatable issues at hand. DNA is not alive, by any definition, and yet it has the potential, under the right circumstances, to help a new human into this world. We are made of the exact same four bases (A, T, C, and G) that all other living things are....it's just the order that the letters are in that makes the difference. The order that makes an organism human we kind of know (thanks to the Human Genome Project), but that doesn't explain the "essence' of humanity.

Tom In VA wrote:I've also learned that science makes no claim as to whether or not it KNOWS where life begins. But that scientists and science teachers will teach their students that it does and use science to sway issues that are better dealt with in the "humanities".

No reputable scientists will claim that they know where human life "starts." Some will shoot for neurological landmarks, some go for developmental landmarks....but the bottom line is that the only honest scientific answer is "we don't know." That's the answer I give my students.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:....but the bottom line is that the only honest scientific answer is "we don't know." That's the answer I give my students.

Then I respect your integrity. Although it does seem somewhat questionable based solely upon your tone here. The tone you take with your students and such is probably a more professional one whereas here it's more prone to "smack", as it should be.

Seriously the visualization based upon your posts is almost like (dressed up for the this place of course).

"Professor Lab Rat, what is all this about stem cells and people saying it's aborting babies".

And your response would be

"Look you dumb tard, scientists have busted their ass to figure this shit out I'm gonne fill you in, they haven't figured it out but they've got some pictures. See. Now if you think THAT is somehow getting rid of a human being, then so be it, mouthbreather".

And of course soming from a science teacher, it carries more weight than say a philosophy teacher.

Outstanding read as always, Mike. Whatever the administrators of your school are paying you, it ain’t enough….

Had a bio professor suggest – I forget which class, and, well, they all seem to run together anymore after 20 years - that science could reproduce every aspect of human life - but the soul.

I still hold to this tenant today.

I’ve read many of your posts over the years on topics closely related to this discussion, Mike, and it is comforting to know that we are both on the same page. I’ve said it before – I wish you were here teaching my kids.

Knowing what I know of the simple, base elements necessary to manifest a human zygote, I still regard the creation of life to be a miracle. All one needs to do is witness the birth of his children. And the fact that I can debate this topic with an inquisitive, intelligent, living-and-breathing end-product 15 years after his conception validates this belief each and every day.

Big-time racks, Mike. Feel free to post more....

Tom in VA... I'll make this simple for you. Go and buy an Anatomy book from any college bookstore and your "science" questions will be answered.

It's that simple. It's just up to you to be able to understand the material.

^^^^^^

Once again, another lame attempt at humor, and once again, missing the point completely.

Outstanding mvscal. Now go procreate yourself.

Way to repeat yourself, and still say nothing, just like the Cheney nutsack gobbling Oreo that you are.

For you, no stretch at all.

2 things kind of stick in my craw--
1) where are all these "blobs of cells" going to come from ?? Likely a pool of women on our lower socio-economic ladder who will get paid to provide the volume needed for proper research. Which brings up another question-- is that really a random sample ??
2) If other sources of stem cells are more easily harvested (umbilical cords/placentas)--why go to all the trouble to have sperm and egg meet, etc ??
I have a feeling that this embryonic stem cell issue is tied into the abortion industry and that is the driving force behind it.
Stop killing babies (and that is what we are doing in these late term abortions/infanticides) and maybe the majority of people will get on board as it were.