Biological Hybridisation / Chimerism

what does this mean my chances for having a genuine 'horse penis' on myself any time soon ?

That's some interesting and frankly creepy stuff. The possiblities are huge though for medical research so some of it gains my support. I have to take this into my ecology class to discuss tonight.

This is wrong! Wrong I tell you!
I say: Hands off the piggies!

This is an endless quest to cure all sorts of diseases. I think the risk of creating a habitat for more deadly diseases is way too high. I'm waiting for the day some researcher admits to have accidentally introduced aids this way and he made up a story about it coming from monkeys in africa.
Basic medical research is fine, but this is totally screwed up. Some diseases we can cure, some we can not. Why do we think we have to do everything possible for the sake of human health?

And why do you want to preserve endangered / extinct animal species? They had their chance to be succesful and they failed. There are too many humans for this earth to inhibit many other species. This is evolution. One day, humans will be extinct and leave space for other lifeforms to evolve. It's not like nature has to start all over after us, don't flatter yourself. We're just part of nature and it will be there when we're not anymore. No harm done.

I don't mean to sound like the bad guy and all that shit, but, what's wrong with diseases? Sure you'll die and you're uncomfortable and maybe you can even manage to infect someone else. Population control is hard enough with out infringing on peoples rights and going into their private lives. Get rid of all these diseases and who's gonna stop over-population. I'd sign up to do it but I don't have that kind of time on my hands anymore.
And, the Chinese are doing this shit? What the fuck? Are they trying to build the invincible Kung Fu soldier of Doom to strike terror in the hearts of westerners? Crazy communist.

[QUOTE=DillingerEscape]I don't mean to sound like the bad guy and all that shit, but, what's wrong with diseases? Sure you'll die and you're uncomfortable and maybe you can even manage to infect someone else. Population control is hard enough with out infringing on peoples rights and going into their private lives. Get rid of all these diseases and who's gonna stop over-population. I'd sign up to do it but I don't have that kind of time on my hands anymore.
And, the Chinese are doing this shit? What the fuck? Are they trying to build the invincible Kung Fu soldier of Doom to strike terror in the hearts of westerners? Crazy communist.[/QUOTE]
Right! The Chinese can't be trusted with this! Let the Americans handle it, they'll use it only for the good of mankind. They are so honest! (they should therefore be the only nation in the world to produce WMD's and what-have-you. :mad: )

oh, sorry about my cynism.
I agree with you on the disease point.

[QUOTE=Suicidal maniac]Right! The Chinese can't be trusted with this! Let the Americans handle it, they'll use it only for the good of mankind. They are so honest! (they should therefore be the only nation in the world to produce WMD's and what-have-you. :mad: )

oh, sorry about my cynism.
I agree with you on the disease point.[/QUOTE]

And I agree with you on the your point about America....

interesting stuff. i know there's still a huge battle to be fought over the ethics of different aspects of this, but overall provides an incredibly promising idea for genetic research, medical research and mutative research.

last time i had the opportunity to read up on the chimera debate, it was talking about if Stuart A. Newman would be granted a patent on a method for combining human and animal DNA (chimeras). he had applied for it not to do the experiments himself, but to stop anyone from doing the experiments. he was a cellular biologist at the New York Medical college. this all took place back around 2000 i think. this was well after the geep creation took place.

Dammit, agreements kill discussions.

How about the "Don't fuck with natures equilibrium" - view?

[QUOTE=Suicidal maniac]This is wrong! Wrong I tell you!
I say: Hands off the piggies!

This is an endless quest to cure all sorts of diseases. I think the risk of creating a habitat for more deadly diseases is way too high. I'm waiting for the day some researcher admits to have accidentally introduced aids this way and he made up a story about it coming from monkeys in africa.
Basic medical research is fine, but this is totally screwed up. Some diseases we can cure, some we can not. Why do we think we have to do everything possible for the sake of human health?

And why do you want to preserve endangered / extinct animal species? They had their chance to be succesful and they failed. There are too many humans for this earth to inhibit many other species. This is evolution. One day, humans will be extinct and leave space for other lifeforms to evolve. It's not like nature has to start all over after us, don't flatter yourself. We're just part of nature and it will be there when we're not anymore. No harm done.[/QUOTE]
so where would YOU draw the line on genetic research. have you even done any serious research on what a chimera involves? it's not adding human sentientcy to animals, nor is it "mudding up the waters" of geneticism. it's little different than the creation of insulin, or organ transplants using heart valves from pigs and cows.

[QUOTE=Suicidal maniac]Dammit, agreements kill discussions.

How about the "Don't fuck with natures equilibrium" - view?[/QUOTE]
how does creating a chimera to be studied in a lab, which probably won't ever be introduced to the wild, fuck with nature's equilibrium?

[QUOTE=trypdwyre]so where would YOU draw the line on genetic research. have you even done any serious research on what a chimera involves? it's not adding human sentientcy to animals, nor is it "mudding up the waters" of geneticism. it's little different than the creation of insulin, or organ transplants using heart valves from pigs and cows.[/QUOTE]

Not talking "Island of Dr. Moreau", which would fucking rock!

[QUOTE=trypdwyre]so where would YOU draw the line on genetic research. have you even done any serious research on what a chimera involves? it's not adding human sentientcy to animals, nor is it "mudding up the waters" of geneticism. it's little different than the creation of insulin, or organ transplants using heart valves from pigs and cows.[/QUOTE]
Didn't you read what I posted? I'm not against every form of medical research. Hooray for insulin and people with piggie-hearts. But I do question the methods.

I've read these articles, and I think this goes too far. I think it is very naive to believe only good things will come from medical research. When medicines can be tested on animals which are more human than their predecessors, why wouldn't there also be animal virusses and bacteria which upgrade themself with that information? It says so in the fucking article, so don't tell me I don't know what a chimira involves.

Nobody can predict all the consequences of this research, not all the positive ones and not all the negative ones. So with no clear evidence at hand, I say: fuck it, no further.

It's all just a matter of point-of-view. To these researchers, also creating a deadly virus is a scientific breakthrough. Insulin for the public, biological weapons for the military.

[QUOTE=trypdwyre]how does creating a chimera to be studied in a lab, which probably won't ever be introduced to the wild, fuck with nature's equilibrium?[/QUOTE]
"probably" says enough.

i never said you didn't know, i'm questioning the amount of thought you put into this. let me take this one thought at a time...
[QUOTE=Suicidal maniac]Didn't you read what I posted? I'm not against every form of medical research. Hooray for insulin and people with piggie-hearts. But I do question the methods.
so back to my initial question? where DO you draw the line?

and there are more articles on this than just the two minuet posted. they are great articles she posted, but you'd get a better grasp of the subject if you looked into medical journals, and read up on the chimeras already made, as written by the researchers who wrote the studies on them.

[QUOTE=Suicidal maniac]"probably" says enough.[/QUOTE]
what would be the harm in that anyway? at the very least they'd not know how to cope, and would die off quickly. at the best they would induce genetic mutations, and as we all should recognize, life thrives on genetic mutations.

[QUOTE=Suicidal maniac]Dammit, agreements kill discussions.

How about the "Don't fuck with natures equilibrium" - view?[/QUOTE]
Nature pretty much fucks with its own equilivrium on a near constant basis. There is a misconception amongst most people that nature and the world are at balance and while it certainly tries to be, it isn't. It's in a state of entropy at all times.

I believe the articles mentioned how DNA can randomly mutate (this is one way to get cancer actually). That isn't aiding the equilibrium.

Neither is the constant extinction and evolution of species. Ecosystems change, species mutate, and all manner of random shit is occurring at this very moment. Nature has no equilibrium.

On the other hand, I do agree that we need to be cautious with this research due to the idea that you state that diseases that only afflict certain species may suddenly develop human strains. Still, I think this research is important. Yes, there is over-population and many people are starving, but they have a chance. Someone afflicted with a debilitating disease in a third-world country is essentially written off. If we can lessen human suffering, so be it. The way to combat over-population is not to enhance the death rate, but to decrease the birth rate.

[QUOTE=trypdwyre]i never said you didn't know, i'm questioning the amount of thought you put into this. let me take this one thought at a time...

1. so back to my initial question? where DO you draw the line?

2. so giving human qualities to animals is bad? what are you afraid of? that animals would then be percieved on the same level as humans? why would that bother you? Do you think that it's ok to test on an animal which has no human qualities, but giving it a human immune system somehow makes it a horrible practice to test on them?

3. and there are more articles on this than just the two minuet posted. they are great articles she posted, but you'd get a better grasp of the subject if you looked into medical journals, and read up on the chimeras already made, as written by the researchers who wrote the studies on them.

4. not all positive research can come from accidents like penecilin did. sometimes we need to take the initiative to try to solve our problems. this is not to say, fuck animals, it's all about me, but what's wrong with using our one primal advantage (tool making/enhanced problem solving) to our benefit?

5. indeed, it is all a point of view. and to demonize scientists by insuating that they are all in it for the money, and the easiest way is to find a better way to destroy life, is a very biased and inaccurate point of view.[/QUOTE]
1. I am not expert enough to draw a line. It looks like a risky business to me. I don't want to choose black or white, so don't ask me to. There are good things and there are bad things about thorough medical research. I don't believe blindly the sunny facts that are presented to me. I am nervous about the fact that virusses and bacteria grow and evolve very fast. An animal with human qualities may provide a suitable place for human diseases to grow in, without the correct human immune system to kill it. I don't say it will happen, but why wouldn't it also be a possibility?

2. I don't think testing on human-like animals is different from testing on animal-like-animals. Only the creation of chimeras with human thingies in it I find very debatable, for the reason mentioned at answer 1.

3. Excuse me for founding my opinion on only two articles, but I didn't make up any facts that can't be verified. This was the reading material suggested for this thread.

4. nothing, don't just quote a single remark to fire at! how about:
[QUOTE=Suicidal maniac]I'm not against every form of medical research. Hooray for insulin and people with piggie-hearts. [/QUOTE]
5. And to idealize scientists to suggest that only good things will come from research is also a very biased and inaccurate point of view.

Please don't put me in the black or in the white category. I am in for discussion about everything. You are attacking me as if I'm a stinkin' Greenpeace hippie here, and you insinuate that I am against every form of medical research. That is not the case.
So, please, provide me with arguments to believe everything is going to be alright and this is the right road to walk in medical research, or don't do that and accept my doubt.

ponder this:

chimeric individuals are shunned, and thought to be taboo, most won't even consider their existance.

chimeric animals are seen as odd, and generally thought to be "lesser".

chimeric plants are embraced for their variance of color, patterns and uniqueness.

is this just a way to establish some sort of heirarchy of kingdom-phylum-class-order-family-genus-species? another way to attempt to prove that humans are superior to animals are superior to plants are superior to single-celled organisms?

[QUOTE=Suicidal maniac]1. I am not expert enough to draw a line. It looks like a risky business to me. I don't want to choose black or white, so don't ask me to. There are good things and there are bad things about thorough medical research. I don't believe blindly the sunny facts that are presented to me. I am nervous about the fact that virusses and bacteria grow and evolve very fast. An animal with human qualities may provide a suitable place for human diseases to grow in, without the correct human immune system to kill it. I don't say it will happen, but why wouldn't it also be a possibility?

2. I don't think testing on human-like animals is different from testing on animal-like-animals. Only the creation of chimeras with human thingies in it I find very debatable, for the reason mentioned at answer 1.

3. Excuse me for founding my opinion on only two articles, but I didn't make up any facts that can't be verified. This was the reading material suggested for this thread.

4. nothing, don't just quote a single remark to fire at! how about:

5. And to idealize scientists to suggest that only good things will come from research is also a very biased and inaccurate point of view.

Please don't put me in the black or in the white category. I am in for discussion about everything. You are attacking me as if I'm a stinkin' Greenpeace hippie here, and you insinuate that I am against every form of medical research. That is not the case.
So, please, provide me with arguments to believe everything is going to be alright and this is the right road to walk in medical research, or don't do that and accept my doubt.[/QUOTE]
i'm not here to argue that everything will be ok. you set me in the black/white category as much as i have you. i merely argue against you, as i don't see this as being a large ethical or health related issue. yes, this could POSSIBLY (again with that word) cause viruses and bacteria to break the genus barrier. viruses and bacteria already have, without the help of lab testing. my argument is that this is merely a matter of taboo, of human ideals that help many think that humans are naturally more "sacred" of beings than any other, that our genetics shouldn't be mudled with. i never said you were aginst every form of medical research, i merely asked you to define where your ideals of "ok" and "not ok" divide.

yes, there were only 2 article suggested for this thread, that doesn't mean you can't educate yourself further to provide a clearer argument. i was suggesting that you do educate yourself further, so you can, at the very least, define to yourself with an educated mind, what is acceptable and what is not.

here are the basic points of my argument.
1) chimeric/mosaic individuals exist in the wild already, even in humans. some people have patches of skin that differ genetically from the rest of their body. hermaphrodites posess both male and female genetics, and are considered chimeric.

2) this would provide no impact on nature that nature cannot take care of on it's own.

3) creating chimeric organisms has massive potential for health benefits. look into the chimeric combination of the common cold and the polio virus (has promise of helping cure brain cancer). yes there may be some drawbacks, such as viruses breaking the genus barrier, but that hardly is reasoning to stop research into something which could have untold potential in learning more about genetics/biology and even more potential for helping solve some of the more harsh human afflictions such as alzheimers, hiv, cancer etc....

4) and on a more abstract level, chimeric organisims add to life, not detract. as i mentioned before, chimeric flowers are sought for their beauty and variety. life thrives on this variety, these sort of mutations. life needs change and differences. for this reason i see no harm in this testing.

[QUOTE=karbunkle]what does this mean my chances for having a genuine 'horse penis' on myself any time soon ?[/QUOTE]

read Secret Renevouz by Kobo Abe

[QUOTE=trypdwyre]ponder this:

chimeric individuals are shunned, and thought to be taboo, most won't even consider their existance.

chimeric animals are seen as odd, and generally thought to be "lesser".

chimeric plants are embraced for their variance of color, patterns and uniqueness.

is this just a way to establish some sort of heirarchy of kingdom-phylum-class-order-family-genus-species? another way to attempt to prove that humans are superior to animals are superior to plants are superior to single-celled organisms?[/QUOTE]
chimeric individuals?
i think you mean tetragametic chimeras, which is formed from four gametes—two eggs and two sperm. As the organism develops, the resulting chimera can come to possess organs that have different sets of chromosomes. For example, the chimera may have a liver composed of cells with one set of chromosones and have a kidney composed of cells with a second set of chromosomes. This has occurred in humans, though it is considered extremely rare, but since it can only be detected through DNA testing, which in itself is rare, it may be more common than currently believed. As of 2003, there were about 30 human cases in the literature, according to New Scientist.

Those individuals are not shunned.

it's possible for one individual to have two distinct types of DNA. Scientists came to the conclusion that a 52-year-old was formed from two non-identical twin girl embryos which fused into a single person in the womb. They discovered this fact when she needed a kidney transplant. Whats even more fucked is that her naturally conceived sons could not donate - because they were not biologically related.

In 1998, doctors at the University of Edinburgh highlighted a case in which two embryos, one male and one female, fused in development to form a single child. His condition was discovered when he was treated because his left testicle had not descended normally and surgeons discovered an ovary and a fallopian tube on the left side.

And even natural pregnancies can involve some cell-swapping. During pregnancy, some cells from the mother slip through into the fetus and vice versa. Up to 90% of women are thought to carry their children's cells or DNA in their blood during pregnancy - and up to 50% for decades afterwards, a condition called micro-chimerism. If a woman then has more children, the older sibling's cells could be passed back into the younger child during that pregnancy.

This is what I think, I think Nature is creating this to happen, because our genetics are so close, Nature then creates more individual, unique human begins so that we may grow and excel.

They have discovered the drugs that improve chance of conception, may also be responsible for more human chimeras. the drugs used to improve fertility can result, [I]unintentionally[/I], in multiple ovulation and raise the prospect that embryos can fuse. IVF is likely to increase the rate of chimeras by a similar factor.
Far from being pure-bred individuals, it seems that our bodies could contain cells from our mothers and even grandparents.
Some 80 to 90 per cent of women carry their children's cells or DNA in their blood during pregnancy and up to 50 per cent keep them for decades after giving birth, resulting in microchimerism as explained above.
A study took blood samples from 32 healthy women and found that 22 per cent were carrying white blood cells from their mothers.

indeed, there are also chimeric persons, most people recognize these as hermaphrodites (as you pointed out the man with the fallopian tubes), but as you said, it may be more common that originally thought as it's hard to distinguish this without some form of testing. these people aren't shunned by the scientific community, but rather the general populace when info about them becomes public. it all falls into the category of people having issues with those who are different than they are, as it is with homosexuality, religious differences, biological differnces, and cultural differences. we're taught not to stand out, but to fit in. and who stands out more than those with biological/genetic mutations, those who will never fit in?

theoretically this interest in genetic mutation (chimeric/mosaic etc...) might be due to amny different factors, but biologically speaking, it's probably because of the increased inter-racial/cultural contact. this is a pretty vague theory, and certainly goes out on a limb, but just suppose that this experimentation is partially due to a grand scheme in nature, working through the scientists. nature sees the close contact that humans are having with one another, races are blending (not a bad thing) and cultures combining to form new cultures (again, not bad). but perhaps there is so much blending going on that nature percieves this as a risk to the vaiations in humanity, what else is there to do but to try to induce mutations through genetic research. i'm not saying this is a conscious thought, but nature's teetering of balance is often unexplainable until after the fact.

of course all of the blending could itself produce more variety than it removes. either way, this is a very interesting topic.

not all tetragametic chimeras result in hermaphrodites.
it is extremely rare for both sets of sexual organs in a hermaphrodite to be functional, usually neither set is functional.
the person I mentioned above, who was a tetragametic chimera (not a hermaphrodite) had offspring. 2 of them. who were not chimeras at all.

There are hermaphrodites, cyclopes, dwarfs, albinos, siamese twins, etc.
And while it is easy to describe these cases as abnormal, normality itself is a moving target. Any mutation that can reproduce has a chance at eventually becoming the norm. What was abnormal may become essential, while what was once normal may become extinct. Mutations kill and disfigure—but they are also how a species survives. genetic variation is essential to life even as it bears us down to our graves. We are all mutants; to our evolutionary ancestors, we must seem monstrously strange progeny.

[QUOTE=trypdwyre]indeed, there are also chimeric persons, most people recognize these as hermaphrodites (as you pointed out the man with the fallopian tubes), but as you said, it may be more common that originally thought as it's hard to distinguish this without some form of testing. these people aren't shunned by the scientific community, but rather the general populace when info about them becomes public. it all falls into the category of people having issues with those who are different than they are, as it is with homosexuality, religious differences, biological differnces, and cultural differences. we're taught not to stand out, but to fit in. and who stands out more than those with biological/genetic mutations, those who will never fit in?

theoretically this interest in genetic mutation (chimeric/mosaic etc...) might be due to amny different factors, but biologically speaking, it's probably because of the increased inter-racial/cultural contact. this is a pretty vague theory, and certainly goes out on a limb, but just suppose that this experimentation is partially due to a grand scheme in nature, working through the scientists. nature sees the close contact that humans are having with one another, races are blending (not a bad thing) and cultures combining to form new cultures (again, not bad). but perhaps there is so much blending going on that nature percieves this as a risk to the vaiations in humanity, what else is there to do but to try to induce mutations through genetic research. i'm not saying this is a conscious thought, but nature's teetering of balance is often unexplainable until after the fact.

of course all of the blending could itself produce more variety than it removes. either way, this is a very interesting topic.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Minuet]not all tetragametic chimeras result in hermaphrodites.
it is extremely rare for both sets of sexual organs in a hermaphrodite to be functional, usually neither set is functional.
the person I mentioned above, who was a tetragametic chimera (not a hermaphrodite) had offspring. 2 of them. who were not chimeras at all.

[B]There are hermaphrodites, cyclopes, dwarfs, albinos, siamese twins, etc.
And while it is easy to describe these cases as abnormal, normality itself is a moving target.[/B] Any mutation that can reproduce has a chance at eventually becoming the norm. What was abnormal may become essential, while what was once normal may become extinct. Mutations kill and disfigure—but they are also how a species survives. genetic variation is essential to life even as it bears us down to our graves. We are all mutants; to our evolutionary ancestors, we must seem monstrously strange progeny.[/QUOTE]
well said, especially the bit in bold.

i'd like to point out at this time that creation of chimeras is illegal in the US, per the April 2004 report from the President's Council on Bioethics. they define chimeras as "attempts to create embryos that combine human and animal DNA". this is why the chinese are doing it, not the americans.

there is a mass of information on chimeras on the internet, i'm still sifting through much of it, minuet sounds like she's had her hands on many scientific journals on the subject. i myself have access to an online resource, paid for by my employer, called Ebsco Host. many public libraries pay for access to this for their patrons. if you want more information on chimeras or mosaics ask your library if they provide access to Ebsco for you.

[QUOTE=Minuet]not all tetragametic chimeras result in hermaphrodites.
it is extremely rare for both sets of sexual organs in a hermaphrodite to be functional, usually neither set is functional.
the person I mentioned above, who was a tetragametic chimera (not a hermaphrodite) had offspring. 2 of them. who were not chimeras at all.

There are hermaphrodites, cyclopes, dwarfs, albinos, siamese twins, etc.
And while it is easy to describe these cases as abnormal, normality itself is a moving target. Any mutation that can reproduce has a chance at eventually becoming the norm. What was abnormal may become essential, while what was once normal may become extinct. Mutations kill and disfigure—but they are also how a species survives. genetic variation is essential to life even as it bears us down to our graves. We are all mutants; to our evolutionary ancestors, we must seem monstrously strange progeny.[/QUOTE]

Who on earth are you debating with and what does this have to do with Trypds post? No one questioned a herms functionality and no one challenged how they come about. It's like you are reading your biology book and just typing your homework.

You're right that any mutation can become norm, but you are speaking in a natural sense. Anything that nature sees as beneficial will prosper. But a herm is not beneficial to nature. It doesn't further the species, and it is self-limiting. A herm can't reproduce so the mutation isn't going to continue on. Same with albinos, siamses twins, etc... those mutations make it difficult to survive in nature and what isn't strong doesn't survive. Now, the mutations that could result from this work could very well become the new norm, but when Trypd says that they are not accepted now, he's right. Any one of the typical mutations you see today are shunned. There is no "accept mutants now!" club. People are very ill equipped to accept something different. Nature may embrace it, but society doesn't.

That said, I don't know why we put so much value on human bits. Stem cells and aborted babes and eggs and sperm and DNA. It's all silly. Nature places us no higher on the chain than a lion, so why do we? Nature must laugh at our pathetic egos. I think we struggle so hard to distance ourselves from nature when we are so much a part of it. I say do what you are capable of doing. If we always refused to take risks because they may end up bad we would still be swinging in the trees. Where do we draw the line? Meh.

[QUOTE=alene]Who on earth are you debating with and what does this have to do with Trypds post? No one questioned a herms functionality and no one challenged how they come about. It's like you are reading your biology book and just typing your homework.

You're right that any mutation can become norm, but you are speaking in a natural sense. Anything that nature sees as beneficial will prosper. But a herm is not beneficial to nature. It doesn't further the species, and it is self-limiting. A herm can't reproduce so the mutation isn't going to continue on. Same with albinos, siamses twins, etc... those mutations make it difficult to survive in nature and what isn't strong doesn't survive. Now, the mutations that could result from this work could very well become the new norm, but when Trypd says that they are not accepted now, he's right. Any one of the typical mutations you see today are shunned. There is no "accept mutants now!" club. People are very ill equipped to accept something different. Nature may embrace it, but society doesn't.

That said, I don't know why we put so much value on human bits. Stem cells and aborted babes and eggs and sperm and DNA. It's all silly. Nature places us no higher on the chain than a lion, so why do we? Nature must laugh at our pathetic egos. I think we struggle so hard to distance ourselves from nature when we are so much a part of it. I say do what you are capable of doing. If we always refused to take risks because they may end up bad we would still be swinging in the trees. Where do we draw the line? Meh.[/QUOTE]
im not debating, im just as interested enough to have made this thread. im talking.
and i dont have to explain to you or to anyone as to why i bring up certain aspects, however they may differ with the topic as originated, its still components to the subject. and nothing having to do with the topic, should be eliminated.
so dont go about your attitude with me.

[QUOTE=karbunkle]what does this mean my chances for having a genuine 'horse penis' on myself any time soon ?[/QUOTE]
and VERY VERY few women in this world would ever touch you.
i knew a guy in the army who couldn't get a seasoned hooker to fuck him. his dick was THAT BIG.
anyway, the whole crossing things can be a bit scary. be careful of what may happen. it may try to turn YOU into a slave. or just eat you with a more intelligent slant to it. like alligators with guns.

[QUOTE=Minuet]im not debating, im just as interested enough to have made this thread. im talking.
and i dont have to explain to you or to anyone as to why i bring up certain aspects, however they may differ with the topic as originated, its still components to the subject. and nothing having to do with the topic, should be eliminated.
so dont go about your attitude with me.[/QUOTE]

Hey, no one is debating your right to post whatever the heck you want, sweetpants. But you are going in acting like you are responding and debating with Trypd by typing in a bunch of drivel that has nothing to do with what you are talking about. I mean, it surely makes you look like you don't have a clue about what you are saying, but that you are just copying and pasting from some websource. Carry on, love.

[QUOTE=Minuet]chimeric individuals?
i think you mean tetragametic chimeras, which is formed from four gametes—two eggs and two sperm. As the organism develops, the resulting chimera can come to possess organs that have different sets of chromosomes. For example, the chimera may have a liver composed of cells with one set of chromosones and have a kidney composed of cells with a second set of chromosomes. This has occurred in humans, though it is considered extremely rare, but since it can only be detected through DNA testing, which in itself is rare, it may be more common than currently believed. As of 2003, there were about 30 human cases in the literature, according to New Scientist.

[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=http://www.informationblast.com/Chimerism.html]
Such an organism is called a tetragametic chimera as it is formed from four gametes—two eggs and two sperm. As the organism develops, the resulting chimera can come to possess organs that have different sets of chromosomes. For example, the chimera may have a liver composed of cells with one set of chromosones and have a kidney composed of cells with a second set of chromosomes. This has occurred in humans, though it is considered extremely rare, but since it can only be detected through DNA testing, which in itself is rare, it may be more common than currently believed. As of 2003, there were about 30 human cases in the literature, according to New Scientist.
[/QUOTE]

Sounds AWFUL familiar, if you ask me. If you're gonna copy a webpage and pass it off as your own knowledge, at least change the wording a bit, huh? In fact, you copied and pasted that entire post. None of it is your wording. Do you even have a clue about any of this? And don't just give me your "I was quoting medical sources" crap, because quoting and ripping off of are two totally different things. Who are you trying to impress?

[B]no fucking shit.[/B] i didnt change the wording because im [B]not[/B] taking the credit, [I]you. dumb. fuck[/I].
how else to inform than to give them [B]facts[/B].
not everything was just copy and pasted, shitface.
[SIZE=4]its a fucking definition. [/SIZE]
deter from that and you have nothing.

[QUOTE=Minuet][B]no fucking shit.[/B] i didnt change the wording because im [B]not[/B] taking the credit, [I]you. dumb. fuck[/I].
how else to inform than to give them [B]facts[/B].
not everything was just copy and pasted, shitface.
[SIZE=4]its a fucking definition. [/SIZE]
deter from that and you have nothing.[/QUOTE]

I think all Alene was getting at was giving credit where credit was due, i.e. the website. Hopefully it was nothing personal.

[QUOTE=Undertow]I think all Alene was getting at was giving credit where credit was due, i.e. the website. Hopefully it was nothing personal.[/QUOTE]
being the mediator of things, i could trust you. but the fact that when I see alene's name on threads of mine, i already know its something snide.
and if its credit she wants to point out, or more seemingly plagiary - she should then look to
[url]www.sciencedaily.com/encyclopedia/chimera__animal_[/url]
and
[url] encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Chimera%20(animal)[/url]
and
[url] chimera.rediffblogs.com[/url]
and
[url]www.websters-online-dictionary.org/[/url]
and
[url] definition/english/Ch/Chimera.html [/url]
and
[url] pheeds.com/info/guide/c/ch/chimera__animal_.html[/url]
and
[url] directory.owlpages.net/wiki/Chimera_(animal) [/url]

....the list goes on.

so she can still fuck off.

[QUOTE=Minuet]being the mediator of things, i could trust you. but the fact that when I see alene's name on threads of mine, i already know its something snide.
and if its credit she wants to point out, or more seemingly plagiary - she should then look to
[url]www.sciencedaily.com/encyclopedia/chimera__animal_[/url]
and
[url] encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Chimera%20(animal)[/url]
and
[url] chimera.rediffblogs.com[/url]
and
[url]www.websters-online-dictionary.org/[/url]
and
[url] definition/english/Ch/Chimera.html [/url]
and
[url] pheeds.com/info/guide/c/ch/chimera__animal_.html[/url]
and
[url] directory.owlpages.net/wiki/Chimera_(animal) [/url]

....the list goes on.

so she can still fuck off.[/QUOTE]

All good on the links. I'm not butting my nose in your history with Alene since I don't need to know about it nor do I even care about it. I'm just a stickler for sources, that's all.

I want a Liger, like in Napolean Dynamite. That'd be neat.

oh, and alene's a nit-picky whore.

[i]"I'm goind to spout off now, and disagree with everything you wrote, or at least try to make you look stupid, to cover up for the fact that I know nothing about the topic of this thread. look at me, I'm a nit-picky whore!"[/i]

why don't you start an "arguments only" thread? That's all it'd have to be is arguments and the like.

I think this topic is very intriguing (sp?) and I'm going to read all the links minuet has provided and then some.

[QUOTE=Undertow]All good on the links. I'm not butting my nose in your history with Alene since I don't need to know about it nor do I even care about it. I'm just a stickler for sources, that's all. ;)[/QUOTE]
i dont even know what it is.

anyways.......
xenotransplants...
they've used chimpanzee livers to transplant into a human, who only lived about 6 years afterwards, due to the chimp liver being too small. they have done this with chimp hearts and baboon hearts too, but again - too small.
now a days - 60,000 pig heart valves are transplanted into humans annually. i know this isnt new news.
yet, scientists have bred pigs blood vessels to contain human blood vessels.
and fetal pig brain cells have been used to treat Parkinson's.
humans and pigs, cats and birds share and spread some of the same diseases, like Sars, hiv and avian flu, to name a few.
so i think its pretty good we find the genetics between humans and animals and compare

[QUOTE=ireLocus]I want a Liger, like in Napolean Dynamite. That'd be neat.

oh, and alene's a nit-picky whore.

[i]"I'm goind to spout off now, and disagree with everything you wrote, or at least try to make you look stupid, to cover up for the fact that I know nothing about the topic of this thread. look at me, I'm a nit-picky whore!"[/i]

why don't you start an "arguments only" thread? That's all it'd have to be is arguments and the like.

I think this topic is very intriguing (sp?) and I'm going to read all the links minuet has provided and then some.[/QUOTE]

a liger would be awesome, hahaha.

i want to touch base on some mythology too. they have such interesting things to tell of, and did much -as far as myths go- of what we are only experimenting in.

Chimera had the body of a goat, the hindquarters of a snake or dragon and the head of a lion.

Dryope had a half-goat baby, Pan.

The offspring of Ixion and Nephele created Centaurs.

Typhon had serpents developed onto his thighs.

Medusa had brass hands, fangs and hair of venomous serpents

Harpies were winged women

Boreas a winged man

Lamia had the body of a serpent and breasts and head of a woman.

shedu were winged bulls or lions and the head of human males.

Minos had the head and tail of a bull on the body of a man

The Griffin has the body of a lion, the head and wings of an eagle

The winged horse; Pegasus

The sirens with the head of a female and the body of a bird.

The Sphinx had the body of a lion and the upper part of a woman.

Cerberus the dog who had three heads

Anubis, a man with a canine head. (my cats name )

Pelias and Neleus, they were twin boys.

Apollo and Artemis were twins

Castor and Pollux twins too

Romulus and Remus, were twins

anyone care to share more? as I know i didnt list them all.
but isnt it so very interesting, to know (i dont know if you believe in mythology, but the characters are interesting enough ) that this is very much a topic to discuss on this whole 'chimerism', considering the name it originated from.

[QUOTE=Minuet][B]no fucking shit.[/B] i didnt change the wording because im [B]not[/B] taking the credit, [I]you. dumb. fuck[/I].
how else to inform than to give them [B]facts[/B].
not everything was just copy and pasted, shitface.
[SIZE=4]its a fucking definition. [/SIZE]
deter from that and you have nothing.[/QUOTE]

Um, ok. Let's just clarify here. You were sharing facts with us by cutting and pasting a bunch of facts from different website and composing them into one paragraph without mentioning sources or even that you were using words that weren't your own and then when called on it you resort to defensive name calling and Minuet Brand Bullshit. See, the thing is, if you were not taking credit, you would at least say: according to someone that isn't me... or, here's an excerpt from so and so... and then finish off with your own comments, you know, like EVERYONE ELSE DOES. But you didn't. You pretended to be responding to someone elses posts by compiling together other articles and making a failed attempt at making it relevant to the conversation. Giving people facts is just super fantastic. Trying to pass of other peoples words isn't so super fantastic. I think it's pretty clear the difference between giving someone a definition and what you are trying to pull off.

[QUOTE=ireLocus]I want a Liger, like in Napolean Dynamite. That'd be neat.

oh, and alene's a nit-picky whore.

[i]"I'm goind to spout off now, and disagree with everything you wrote, or at least try to make you look stupid, to cover up for the fact that I know nothing about the topic of this thread. look at me, I'm a nit-picky whore!"[/i]

why don't you start an "arguments only" thread? That's all it'd have to be is arguments and the like.

I think this topic is very intriguing (sp?) and I'm going to read all the links minuet has provided and then some.[/QUOTE]

Listen, kid. I know everyone that is lacking the left side of their brain swings from Minuets tits, but here's a news flash: she's full of shit and she got caught. If that makes me a whore, fantastic. Glad you joined in the conversation, it is an interesting topic, no? And I agree, the links provided are full of good information NOW THAT SHE HAS OWNED UP TO THEM. One problem though, if you want to add to the conversation, my pseudo-quoting extraordinaire, you're gonna have to do better than that.

my tits have nothing to do with this and youre still a fucking nimrod. sorry, but not everyone quotes from so and so, and i wasnt replying to trypd with bullshit, im sorry i had to define something, im not going to refer to every single fucking website that refers to the definition of chimerism, like its a fucking school project.
jesus tap dancing christ. fuck you alene, and get your head out of your ass.

youre acting like a troll. you have something bad to say about everything i say. its almmost like you do it on purpose, because you are fucking lame. and a bitch. and you suck.

now please leave me alone, after every mean thing we can say to one anotehr, it isnt going to justify or make either feel better inside.

so just go away now.

youve made your point

we changed the subject and now youre wearing a little tutu dancing around the subject like you just got your cock sucked for the first time.

now the subject will go back to normal and you will just let it be.

my contribution to this thread is more the:

all of this cross-breeding biz sounds cool
we need more ligers. end of story.

[QUOTE=Minuet]my tits have nothing to do with this and youre still a fucking nimrod. sorry, but not everyone quotes from so and so, and i wasnt replying to trypd with bullshit, im sorry i had to define something, im not going to refer to every single fucking website that refers to the definition of chimerism, like its a fucking school project.
jesus tap dancing christ. fuck you alene, and get your head out of your ass.

youre acting like a troll. you have something bad to say about everything i say. its almmost like you do it on purpose, because you are fucking lame. and a bitch. and you suck.

now please leave me alone, after every mean thing we can say to one anotehr, it isnt going to justify or make either feel better inside.

so just go away now.

youve made your point

we changed the subject and now youre wearing a little tutu dancing around the subject like you just got your cock sucked for the first time.

now the subject will go back to normal and you will just let it be.[/QUOTE]

I love it when people use the "stop hanging onto it dumbhead while I sit here and respond to what you just said and hanging onto it myself" bullshit. Don't respond if you have moved on.

It's called plagarism, you know what you were doing and so do I. Forgetting to quote a source and putting together a response formed almost entirely out of other people words are totally different things. You weren't defining something. I am not going to argue this with you. You aren't bright enough to grasp this concept, so let's move on, shall we?

I'm lazy: has anyone mentioned the spider/goat hybrid they created a couple years back? supposedly it excretes some of the toughest yet pliable material anyone's every seen, like 50x stronger than nylon and a lot lighter.

Catfight! Catfight!

ehm, no, ontopic, Ligerfight! Ligerfight!

[QUOTE=trypdwyre]i'm not here to argue that everything will be ok. you set me in the black/white category as much as i have you. i merely argue against you, as i don't see this as being a large ethical or health related issue. yes, this could POSSIBLY (again with that word) cause viruses and bacteria to break the genus barrier. viruses and bacteria already have, without the help of lab testing. my argument is that this is merely a matter of taboo, of human ideals that help many think that humans are naturally more "sacred" of beings than any other, that our genetics shouldn't be mudled with. i never said you were aginst every form of medical research, i merely asked you to define where your ideals of "ok" and "not ok" divide.

yes, there were only 2 article suggested for this thread, that doesn't mean you can't educate yourself further to provide a clearer argument. i was suggesting that you do educate yourself further, so you can, at the very least, define to yourself with an educated mind, what is acceptable and what is not.

here are the basic points of my argument.
1) chimeric/mosaic individuals exist in the wild already, even in humans. some people have patches of skin that differ genetically from the rest of their body. hermaphrodites posess both male and female genetics, and are considered chimeric.

2) this would provide no impact on nature that nature cannot take care of on it's own.

3) creating chimeric organisms has massive potential for health benefits. look into the chimeric combination of the common cold and the polio virus (has promise of helping cure brain cancer). yes there may be some drawbacks, such as viruses breaking the genus barrier, but that hardly is reasoning to stop research into something which could have untold potential in learning more about genetics/biology and even more potential for helping solve some of the more harsh human afflictions such as alzheimers, hiv, cancer etc....

4) and on a more abstract level, chimeric organisims add to life, not detract. as i mentioned before, chimeric flowers are sought for their beauty and variety. life thrives on this variety, these sort of mutations. life needs change and differences. for this reason i see no harm in this testing.[/QUOTE]
I agree with you on the ethics-part.
As long as a creature doesn't have a self-consciousness or is in terrible pain (i know this is already very difficult to test), it won't be a problem to me. (I have problems, for instance, with anti-abortion or not performing euthanasia when it's the patients wish to die. - that is unethical to me)

I consider humans not more sacred than other developed species like pigs or whatever.

Research to cure all sorts of terrible diseases is a common and normal practice. But a success like insulin doesn't mean everything should be permitted to achieve more. And I think it's naive to think only the good things will be used. When all scientists were honest and would consider the "wellbeing of mankind" as the goal for this sort of research, the world wouldn't be as screwed up as it is now.

Thanks for the arguments. Let me respond:

1. Do you think the average hermaphrodite is so thrilled about his/her own condition that they would say; "do make more of us! This is an extra dimension to being human."

2&3. This is true, I already said nature will survive anyway. But it's mankind I'm worried about. Maybe we're better off now than with a cure for "fill-in-disease" together with a "simular-to-aids-or-something-virus". That's my worry.

4. Life thrives on variations, true. But natural mutations come in small steps and they have time on their hands. They are not influenced by budget, deadlines, Nobel prizes, fame, military causes, presidential terms, a researchers lifespan, political conflict, patents, arms races, or whatever. Unsuccesful natural mutants die by natural causes, but in a laboratory they can be kept alive and can even be bred with. This is not pushing evolution, it's trying to work against its mechanism. Have you read the Selfish Gene by R. Dawkins? Then you should understand the mechanisms of nature and mutation and evolution a little bit.

[QUOTE=Suicidal maniac]Thanks for the arguments. Let me respond:

1. Do you think the average hermaphrodite is so thrilled about his/her own condition that they would say; "do make more of us! This is an extra dimension to being human."

2&3. This is true, I already said nature will survive anyway. But it's mankind I'm worried about. Maybe we're better off now than with a cure for "fill-in-disease" together with a "simular-to-aids-or-something-virus". That's my worry.

4. Life thrives on variations, true. But natural mutations come in small steps and they have time on their hands. They are not influenced by budget, deadlines, Nobel prizes, fame, military causes, presidential terms, a researchers lifespan, political conflict, patents, arms races, or whatever. Unsuccesful natural mutants die by natural causes, but in a laboratory they can be kept alive and can even be bred with. This is not pushing evolution, it's trying to work against its mechanism. Have you read the Selfish Gene by R. Dawkins? Then you should understand the mechanisms of nature and mutation and evolution a little bit.[/QUOTE]
and now i shall respond to yours...

1) your argument there has no bearing on the argument i made. do you really think hermaphrodites would feel so uncertain of their situation if it was embraced by their fellow man, and not treated like a "defect"? if people did embrace hermaphrodites, i think yes, hermaphrodites would certainly feel it easier to embrace their variance.

2&3) we agree here then, i think, though i'm not terribly worried about mankind, when our time's up, there will be nothing we can do to prevent it, or change that course.

4) some of the points you make there are very valid. i question what is "natural" and what is not. think of it like this. we humans "naturally" have increased tool making/using skills, and increased problem solving skills, this is our edge on life, what has kept us from being preyed out into extinction. so when we use this natural gift, we create things unnaturally? i know it sounds odd, but there is a pretty good chance that our research and testing is all a product of nature, and driven by nature. in which case we are pushing evolution. this is just a theory mind you, one i've only heard a few times, and i myself have only been thinking about for a while. this doesn't condone all of our actions, rather it can give our actions meaning.

i haven't read the book you've mentioned, though i have poured over countless micro/macro evolution books, especially back when i was in college. yes, evolution tends to come slowly, it's more stable that way, but if you notice that even though it moves slowly, it has periods of insane bursts of rapid change. this is thought to be caused by changes in habitat and enviroment. i see no problem with manipulating these constants. such ideas have brought us the best in produce, and many other wonders of nature...

I like your theory! I always have respect for people who explain clear views on a case. This doesn't mean that we agree on all things, but I'm definitely going to needle other people with your arguments.

When you're interested in evolution literature, I do encourage you to read Dawkins. He was considered the new Darwin 25 years ago, and his popular-biological Selfish Genes is a very good book.

[QUOTE=alene]Listen, kid. I know everyone that is lacking the left side of their brain swings from Minuets tits, but here's a news flash: she's full of shit and she got caught. If that makes me a whore, fantastic. Glad you joined in the conversation, it is an interesting topic, no? And I agree, the links provided are full of good information NOW THAT SHE HAS OWNED UP TO THEM. One problem though, if you want to add to the conversation, my pseudo-quoting extraordinaire, you're gonna have to do better than that.[/QUOTE]

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

what the hell's a [i]pseudo-quoting extraordinaire[/i] anyways? Is that really an insult? oh, wait, I guess the left side of my brain hasn't developed enough to understand your obviously superior intellect. all these scary mean cult members, bwah bwah bwah.... oh, and here's an insult sure to reach even the highest forms of intellect coming straight to you from my apparent idiocy: F U

to the rest of you:
I'm quite enjoying the content of this thread as it is a subject which holds my attention, and with which I am not too familiar yet.

(oh, and Minuet, I've never even seen your tits. as for arlen, well she sounds jealous. maybe her little ta-ta's need some attention... its just sad.)

[QUOTE=ireLocus]
(oh, and Minuet, I've never even seen your tits. as for arlen, well she sounds jealous. maybe her little ta-ta's need some attention... its just sad.)[/QUOTE]

[SIZE=1]no one has seen my tits, which is why her reference was doubly dumb.
(my ta-ta's are petite. from what alene says, hers are [I]oh too big[/I]...)[/SIZE]

oh, on chimerism; I find it very strange, that two cells cooperate with each other to form an organism that hasn't existed before.
its funny, because hardly anyone can cooperate, at least not in the long run, which is sort of what chimeras do. its even more astonishing that approx 1.5% of human DNA is made of actual genes that have a known function, and the rest is pretty damn mysterious, hence all the research.

another interesting situation is where the government has been required to develop an automated info system called Chimera.
machine-readable biometric identifiers in: visas and passports, possibly even Money, and credit cards, to reduce counterfiet and fraud.
thing is, they have a whole shit load of problems with it, taking too long to identify, not identiying accurately andf having a little under half the tests fail.
apparently it was originated after 911 for INS. But this opened whole new windows to breeze shit over and make a mess.
But Im curious to see them expand on it. Should be interesting.

[QUOTE=Minuet][SIZE=1]no one has seen my tits, which is why her reference was doubly dumb.
(my ta-ta's are petite. from what alene says, hers are [I]oh too big[/I]...)[/SIZE]

oh, on chimerism; I find it very strange, that two cells cooperate with each other to form an organism that hasn't existed before.
its funny, because hardly anyone can cooperate, at least not in the long run, which is sort of what chimeras do. its even more astonishing that approx 1.5% of human DNA is made of actual genes that have a known function, and the rest is pretty damn mysterious, hence all the research.
that's not exactly accurate, they don't form a new organism persay, but they do form one organism comprised of 2 different parts. the organism isn't considered a "new organism" because there are essentially 2 different sets of dna shaping the creature. it would be considered a "new organism" if it were only 1 set of dna shaping this new combination creature.

yes, the end product of chimeras, everything from hermaphrodites to the geep, are different than their respective donors, but there is no genetic change in their dna that would establish a new organism.

[QUOTE=ireLocus]blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

what the hell's a [i]pseudo-quoting extraordinaire[/i] anyways? Is that really an insult? oh, wait, I guess the left side of my brain hasn't developed enough to understand your obviously superior intellect. all these scary mean cult members, bwah bwah bwah.... oh, and here's an insult sure to reach even the highest forms of intellect coming straight to you from my apparent idiocy: F U

to the rest of you:
I'm quite enjoying the content of this thread as it is a subject which holds my attention, and with which I am not too familiar yet.

(oh, and Minuet, I've never even seen your tits. as for arlen, well she sounds jealous. maybe her little ta-ta's need some attention... its just sad.)[/QUOTE]

That's cute that you've never heard the saying 'swinging from his balls' - I thought for sure everyone was familiar with that. Are you really intimidated by the culties around here? I mean, you say "all these scary mean cult members" - do they really scare you? Why? Especially when they don't even realize that you exist and don't actually attempt to make conversation with you because you come across like yet another one of the banal morons who are just like SO STOKED everytime they see Fight Club. I mean, that movies the coolest! I'm a space monkey! Yeah!