jump to last post 1-31 of 31 discussions (104 posts)

Will u accept when scientists will ask to Create humans in labs?

  1. profile image62
    BestConcernsposted 6 years ago

    My latest hub is regarding the advancements of human scientific knowldge leading to creation of artificial life.

    1. profile image0
      sandra rinckposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      They already do. smile

      1. Pcunix profile image88
        Pcunixposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        No, not quite yet.  But it gets closer every day.

        1. profile image0
          sandra rinckposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Well I was thinking more along the lines of artificial insemination.

          1. Shahid Bukhari profile image62
            Shahid Bukhariposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Please use the Term  "Induced insemination Procedure" ... wrongly called Artificial Insemination

            1. couturepopcafe profile image60
              couturepopcafeposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              lol   Sorry.  If it ain't the real thing inseminating, it's artificial.

    2. esraustun profile image61
      esraustunposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      There is no such thing as alive or not alive. All the things are alive (from a single quark to universe(s) itself(themselves) and bound to their limitations and functions. All is just an endless chain of systems. Since there is no end, there is no meaning. We can even say that there is no difference between existence or nonexistence. They are the same thing as well. So, the thing as artificial life you were talking is just a regular new grouping of endless layers of life (ok call it as life)

      Well, just my insignificant opinion smile do not take me so seriously.

      1. AJWalton profile image61
        AJWaltonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        great response!

    3. Onusonus profile image87
      Onusonusposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Just what the world needs, another kid without parents. I think our socioty has enough dumpster babies to be worried about. We don't need to add clones to the pile.

    4. Shahid Bukhari profile image62
      Shahid Bukhariposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Please try to understand ... Life is Real ... Life hath been Created by God ... Lab Replications, Cloning in Duplication ... and Dumpster Babies ... are Not Creation ...

      Being born Is of The Ordained ...

      1. couturepopcafe profile image60
        couturepopcafeposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Perhaps the Lord can work through science to create something only He can dream up?

    5. OpinionDuck profile image60
      OpinionDuckposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Maybe the humans created in the lab will be a better design than what exists.

    6. Stump Parrish profile image60
      Stump Parrishposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      One step farther with this one. If and when scientists do reach the point of being able to create human life in a lab, will the church fight the destruction of this zygote when problems develop or the scientist decides they don't want kids just yet? Will the army of god then start targeting scientists for murder?

  2. psycheskinner profile image79
    psycheskinnerposted 6 years ago

    This will occur so far in the future, if at all, that we will essential be a different species by then anyway.

    1. profile image0
      luabuposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      my guess is much less than 200yrs
      the chinese stem cell research on mice has produced clones with offspring without defects from skin cells
      d'ont kid yourself it's not coming just because you don't want it
      it's possible that china has done this already

    2. Pcunix profile image88
      Pcunixposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I bet it is closer than you think.

      I bet most of the people reading this thread will still be alive when we are capable of creating any desired cells from nothing but chemicals.

  3. psycheskinner profile image79
    psycheskinnerposted 6 years ago

    I am not kidding myself. A clone is just a twin with a diofferent birth date.  They are not artificial at all.  Currently we can't even make an artificial bacteria from scratch, just retrofit one to work a bit differently.  I would say over 1000 years to make a new artificial human from the ground up.

    1. profile image0
      luabuposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      hi again
      what happens is you find the part of the brain that makes the person feel unique
      you transplant to the cloned body that part thus killing the clone
      hey presto immortality  whether you believe it or not /less than 200yrs

    2. Disturbia profile image60
      Disturbiaposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Yes we can make artificial bacteria.  I just saw it on 20/20.  Craig Venter has created the largest man-made DNA structure by synthesizing and assembling the 582,970 base pair genome of a bacterium.

      1. psycheskinner profile image79
        psycheskinnerposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        I said they didn't create an articfical bacteria, and they didn't.  They injected modified DNA into one to create what is essentially a new species.

        Similarly we cannot create an ovum, but we can put someone elses DNA into an existing ovum which is rather different and a lot easier.

        1. qwark profile image60
          qwarkposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          psyche:
          Yep.
          it may not be in my lifetime, but if man survives the next 50 -100 yrs, he will, thru the processes of genetic engineering, create a new human species.
          The problem is that I don't think we'll be here, AS WE ARE, much longer.
          I am the "forever" pessimist.
          As he currently exists, man is not capable of extended travel beyond the atmosphere of planet earth.
          At some time in the future "he" will have to leave in search of other habitable places in the universe.
          At this point in "our" evolution, we are "slaves" to Mother Earth.
          A "transhuman" being will, out of necessity, have to be created, that will be able to withstand the rigors and dangers of extended space travel.
          We humans are absolutely capable of creating a new species of "human" and if given a chance will, certainly, do it.
          Qwark

        2. Pcunix profile image88
          Pcunixposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Synthesized DNA.  Not modified, synthesized.

          It's coming. For real.

  4. profile image62
    BestConcernsposted 6 years ago

    Infact there are many techniques unknown to organize things to let it happen.And a lot of cost and human resources are involved.Human cloning is a simple procedure for which all kind of preliminary platform is available.However it is not allowed ethically so far.

  5. profile image62
    BestConcernsposted 6 years ago

    Well luabu your saying is quite fascinating....yet based on scientific knowlege and structure of brain...its appears to be impossible...keeping in view the advancements in science and technology...its gauranteed it wont occur in next 2000 years or so.

  6. psycheskinner profile image79
    psycheskinnerposted 6 years ago

    Um, no there is no such part of the brain, and we can't do brain transplants.  That is science fiction.  But even if we could, that would not be an artificial or created human, it would be a massive organ transplant.  This is not a problem for our lifetimes.

    Human cloning on the other hand could be done right now, but ethically is a much less conplex issue.  The cloned baby is still a baby with normal human rights should one every be born.  But given the failure rate I hope no-one would do it.

  7. skyfire profile image73
    skyfireposted 6 years ago

    If this becomes successful then we don't have to worry about kidney, heart and other organ failures cause we'll get them from our clones. It's just that some religious or human rights people should stop poking their nose into this.

    1. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Not a chance.
      The clones will end up picketing in the streets for their "rights".

      And honestly, if it's not one disease it will be another.  Mankind is prone to disease no matter what.  It's wrong to think we can play God without consequences.

      1. skyfire profile image73
        skyfireposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        See ? How predictable things are ?

        Your god(savior) is unprovable and died on cross like helpless kitteh so gather proof for his allknowing almighty presence before making argument with his name in everything that you oppose. As far as human rights are concerned, 'The island' movie has some pointers on how to work on it.  Remember if not Christians someone else can execute this because whole world is NOT deluded under Christianity.

        When it comes to survival, we all take what it takes to survive. Even if making our clones in order to survive.

      2. profile image0
        sandra rinckposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Yes, yes, Brenda, everyone already knows how you feel about who or what has rights.

  8. Dolores Monet profile image90
    Dolores Monetposted 6 years ago

    I dunno - aren't there enough people already? I like making people the old fashioned way. It's just more fun.

    1. profile image0
      sandra rinckposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah making them that way is fun but pushing them through the tunnel is not so much. lol

  9. Greek One profile image75
    Greek Oneposted 6 years ago

    Would it be that much worse then some drunk guy forgetting to put on a condom after taking a sleazy woman home after last call?

    Does the sanctity of human life not lie more in the inherent value of the individual as bestowed by God, rather than the manner of conception?

    1. profile image0
      luabuposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      we're not talking about conception here /it's creation

      1. Greek One profile image75
        Greek Oneposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        if the being in question has the same biology and DNA, and is capable of the same thoughts and potential, then what is the difference?

        God create both sexes with the ability (generally speaking) to procreate.  He also created the elements from which humans may be created in labs.

        Whether people are brought into this world via intercourse, via  fertility techniques, or through cloning or whatever, the important thing is if their underlying nature is human

        1. skyfire profile image73
          skyfireposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          It's about survival.

          If Christians can write punishment for me and blabber verses of hell. Then i have a right to make clone from my DNA and live as much as i can. wink

          1. Greek One profile image75
            Greek Oneposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            i think if we are going to start cloning and such, we should only make REALLY attractive people

            1. skyfire profile image73
              skyfireposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              Clones are copies, not body modification or consciousness shifting. yikes

              You can't make brad pitt out of yourself or cheryle cole out of lady gaga using process of cloing lol

              1. Greek One profile image75
                Greek Oneposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                i don't want to make a copy of myself,.,... i want to make copies of enough hot women so that the numbers game shifts in my balance

                1. skyfire profile image73
                  skyfireposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  lol

  10. profile image0
    luabuposted 6 years ago

    whats so weird about a partial brain transplant
    this thing will be done and dusted in 200yrs max
    the chinese are the guys working while you're talking
    why not imagine the implications/  a leader of the chinese peoples party and his friends who never die/they can plan for a 1000yrs at a time  /well!

  11. Disturbia profile image60
    Disturbiaposted 6 years ago

    I can't imagine why anyone would want to create humans in a lab anyway.  The world is already overpopulated.  What would be the point to increase that overpopulation by adding artifically created humans to the mix... just to prove that it could be done?  Do we really need a race of artifically engineered super humans walking around?

    1. profile image0
      luabuposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      nobody said you or i will be getting one /just a few
      run down and tell the greek guy
      the piece of brain contains the person/sense of self/memories etc /etc/
      so you get an old head on young shoulders/this is not conception
      this is immortality bar a blip

      1. Greek One profile image75
        Greek Oneposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        could i get 5 versions of me then?  They could each take a day of work Monday to Friday and let me relax.

        I'm not saying I want to photocopy myself, don't get me wrong...

        i just don't think that the 'old me' would have any more right to live than the xeroxed 'new' versions of me(s)?

    2. Pcunix profile image88
      Pcunixposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Sterile humans.

      Genetically engineered to be very attractive and with raging libidos.

      Should take care of the population problem fairly quickly.

      1. profile image0
        sandra rinckposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        I like how you think! smile

        1. Pcunix profile image88
          Pcunixposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          And think of the fun we'll have solving the problem..

  12. Disturbia profile image60
    Disturbiaposted 6 years ago

    Ok, I'm good with this, but I don't want another version of myself.  I'll take one 25 year old supermodel body in perfect health with perfect eyesight and teeth and I'm more than happy to have my brain transplanted.  Didn't I see something like that on Star Trek once?

    1. Greek One profile image75
      Greek Oneposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I'll take one of those too!

  13. profile image0
    sandra rinckposted 6 years ago

    "We're basically getting new life out of the computer," Venter says. "We started with a genetic code in the computer, wrote the 'software,' put it into the cell and transformed it biologically into a new species. We're still stunned by it as a concept."

    Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article … z175AvHJ2F

    It has already been done.

    1. Pcunix profile image88
      Pcunixposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      But even Venter admits that moving beyond that to creating any desired cell on demand is still far away.

      It will come.  It won't be hundreds of years, but it might be many decades.

      1. profile image0
        sandra rinckposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Okay, now I see what you are talking about and what everyone else is talking about. Yes, it will be done.

    2. Shahid Bukhari profile image62
      Shahid Bukhariposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      The Electrons assisted  Modification, of the Genome's Proteins Structure ... the Amino Acids Memory being Tempered with ... in place of the Conventional, test tubes based Organic-Implants ...

      Both these are not the creation of Life ... as falsely claimed, and qualified within the usual, Superlatives, by whoever, this Venter is ...

      Venter's saying ... they are able to Create Life to Order ... are two different statements ... In that while Life is God's Creation ... their toying with The Elemental States of Created Life, is Venterism.

      Its the same, as claimed by Scientists claiming, having the ability to Create Antimatter ... using, the Large Hadron Collider at CERN ... 

      In their first Toying, the Genetists gave humankind, the gift of HIV/AIDS ... and the New brands of Flu ... In this new fangled electronic "creating" ... they will destroy Humankind.

  14. Richieb799 profile image59
    Richieb799posted 6 years ago

    Even if it is not allowed ethically, you will still get some of the Rich and powerful who would be able to request that dead loved ones be cloned .. and they will be able to bypass laws. You know the type of stuff you see in movies lol

    1. Pcunix profile image88
      Pcunixposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      The proscription against cloning is reasonable only so long as there are concerns about the ability of the organism to survive and reproduce if it so wishes.

      If those problems are eliminated, any such laws are based on nothing but religious foolishness, which means that we'll likely have them for hundreds of years after they have no reason to exist.

  15. Pcunix profile image88
    Pcunixposted 6 years ago

    Tangentially related:  http://topicfire.com/share/How-DARPA-Is … 26746.html

    Because nothing (except religious dogma) says life has to come from DNA.

  16. profile image0
    awesome77posted 6 years ago

    I pray for all humans, because when we become like cows, the implications are far reaching! Well, God gave us will power and imagination, and as you know anything you can imagine, can be created!

    1. profile image0
      sandra rinckposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      And would you kill it?

    2. qwark profile image60
      qwarkposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Awesome:
      "... anything you can imagine, can be created!"
      yep!
      After all, man "imagined" this "god thing" then "created" it in stories.
      Wait Awesome, do ya think man can make "it" a "reality?
      I'm waiting for a well thought out reply. Ok?
      Qwark

    3. Pcunix profile image88
      Pcunixposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      1. We are mammals, just like cows and share common ancestry.
      2. No gods were involved with any of it.

  17. psycheskinner profile image79
    psycheskinnerposted 6 years ago

    Cloning for humans would currently be too cruel as their ar multiple failures for each clone with deformities and clone still show premature ages--but the reasons are well known and being improved.

    That said, an actual from scratch artifical animal of any kind?  I feel it is quite realistic to say 1000 years.

    Have you ever read books and articles that speculate on scientific advances?  According them we should all be living on the moon and communicating telepathically.

    There are hundreds of problems to solve between where are now and a life form that is fully manufactired.  And the problems we have solved have each taken decades.

    Just getting a reliable gene knock out in a mouse took over ten years from first attemtp you commerical product.  That is just turning off one gene.

    We finally have complete genomes for humans.  But have also began to realise how much even of straight genetic material isnlt actually stores on chronosomes, so even that is not really complete.

    There is a lot to be done.  generations of effort at the current rate of investment in fundamental science research.  Which is essentially pitiful.  Many generations so long as the US won;t get into stem cell research.  being able to create and program stem cells is just one of thse hundreds of things that you would need to know to make a mouse, let alone a person.

    But I would also say this: once we make a person, they will be a person under the law and have human rights.  The ethics there is pretty rock solid and unlikely to change.

    1. qwark profile image60
      qwarkposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Psyche:
      Computers will reduce time for research.
      All that is needed is a genetic alphabet. When that is complete, in the next few years, someone, somewhere will use it to create a new human species. Oh yes!
      Qwark.
      I'm off to the gym...ttyl...

  18. psycheskinner profile image79
    psycheskinnerposted 6 years ago

    Computers are already available. And all they do is compute, the do not tell us what tells a stem cell to become bone not liver.

    And no, knowing the chromosomal genome is not enough.  the print out of a mouse genome does not become a mouse.  We still required two mice to make a mouse.  I expect that to remain the case, as I said, for a long time.

    We can't even gestate an embryo outside of the body and it is already essentially fully programmed. 

    We can't even synthesise breast milk completely and maintain its full function

    or potting soil.

    We can't repair a tendon injury without scarring.

    The raw genome is only the first baby step towrards understanding how to create an organism.

    We have a long looong ways to go.  The first step would be to have more than a handful of labs working on it, and properly fund them.  The second would be to have kids leave US high school with a rudimentry understanding of, and interest in, science. The third step would be to have a society that supports the use of animals in research.  I could go on.

    1. Pcunix profile image88
      Pcunixposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Not quite. We are learning what causes a stem cell to differentiate. 

      Read up on this stuff - it's moving very, very fast.

    2. qwark profile image60
      qwarkposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Psyche:
      That's not what I said.
      I said once we've created an alphabet (knowing what each gene does)then we can "create" with them.
      That time is closer than you think.
      Qwark

  19. Greek One profile image75
    Greek Oneposted 6 years ago

    are you people forgetting
    http://caffeine-headache.net/blog3/clone-wars.jpg

    not to mention other lifeforms we have created...

    http://thevegaswindow.com/site/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/956-067terminator-2-posters.jpg

    or other semi-intelligent human which ALREADY walk among us..

    http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2009/12/13/alg_snooki_jersey_shore.jpg

  20. profile image0
    sandra rinckposted 6 years ago

    Snooky is enough to make me believe the whole thing is a very bad idea. lol

  21. profile image0
    luabuposted 6 years ago

    this is my third go at this with the greek guy
    the one bit of your brain where you live goes into the space made in the cloned body for it
    there is still only one of you
    do ya get it

    1. Greek One profile image75
      Greek Oneposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      let me clarify it for you if I can...

      my conception of cloning does not necessarily mean the transfer of memory or identity.  we are talking about physical duplication.

      Now, if you disagree with that, or if you insist that one can not be done without the other, then please feel free to set up a lab and place any piece of your brain.. especially the condescending part.. to where ever you want it to go

      1. Pcunix profile image88
        Pcunixposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        I tucked my brain there for a bit, but it was really uncomfortable and hard to walk.  Even sitting was difficult.  I think the problem was that I had to keep my brain encased in its protective shell.  Without that, the procedure would have been easier.

  22. BDazzler profile image82
    BDazzlerposted 6 years ago

    Blade Runner seems to be the most likely scenario ... A corporation will patent an "Artificial" life form - For profit, cheap labor and what not ... a new form of slave, except, not a slave because it's not quite human... the debate, just getting warmed up here ...  will be on this life form's rights(or lack of rights.)

    People, for all of their supposed compassion, will do what is best for themselves and act like it's moral. Because that's what we always do.  We don't like to see people hurting ... we don't care if they hurt, we just don't like to see it. It makes us feel bad, and really it's all about us. tongue

    There really is no "right" answer. These things will be like parent-less children.  There may be a government agency to prevent clone abuse ... we see how well the government does now, preventing child abuse.

    There will be people who call themselves Christians who claim that these creatures do not have souls.  (So they can do whatever they want)

    There will be others who will try to invent new theology to try to "save" them.

    Those people who claim it's "good" will be the first to say "society" is responsible, but refuse to take personal responsibility. It's both sides of the spectrum.  Like abortion opponents who don't support alternatives, and welfare proponents who think there's nothing wrong with paying women to have babies.

    These artificial creatures will suffer humiliation and physical pain because nobody is willing to say that just because we can do something doesn't mean we should ... the more human they are, the more tragic it will be ... like that scene blade runner where they really just want to be human, but know they can't.

    Nobody will really have an answer and it will be just one more polarizing factor.

    1. qwark profile image60
      qwarkposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Bdazz:
      It has to begin someplace.
      Man will not remain "shackled" to ignorance.
      His curiosity will have to be sated!
      Qwark

      1. BDazzler profile image82
        BDazzlerposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        From a strictly scientific standpoint you are correct.  The scientific/medical world has made great strides by ignoring human dignity.

        Nobody can argue that great good has come from moral doctors who studied the anatomy atlas created by German physicians who unshackled themselves from traditional morality and dissected healthy Jewish men, women and children for the greater good of society.

        Dear me, I have once again proven the internet Nazi law ... So sorry, Nazis are such easy targets ... Let's move closer to home ... The Tuskegee Syphilis Study ... ended in the 1970s was done right here in the United States by those who refused to be shackled to ignorance ... by good loyal Americans. Scientists, of course ... the new high priests of our modern society who's motives and methods must never be questioned. They unshackle us from ignorance after all.

        And while the Blacks and Jews, considered sub-human through much of the twentieth century sacrificed their health and lives (involuntarily of course, but truly scientific knowledge is far more important the the inconvenience of a few sub-humans ... After all, we must sate our curiosity ...) for  the advancement of science ... we have sub-human clones in the twenty first century ...

        It has already begun Qwark, and it's been going on for a long time Mary Shelly warned us about it in 1817, that's almost 200 years, now. 

        It has begun, and we continue to "advance" our knowledge, as those who are "not us" pay the price. Jews, Blacks, Native Americans, Clones ... it doesn't matter. Science will advance.  No price is too high to sate our curiosity, especially if "they" pay it.

        1. qwark profile image60
          qwarkposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Bdazz:
          You've got a hand on reality!
          Qwark

        2. profile image0
          Baileybearposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          scientists are not "high priests" etc.  Science is not the enemy.  Science is neutral. It comes down to what ethical controls that society decides to put in place to stop the ones doing destructive things.  It is what people decide to do with science, politics etc.  Unfortunately, valid science is becoming contaminated by political forces, just like religion and politics are in bed together.

          1. BDazzler profile image82
            BDazzlerposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Unfortunately, valid science is becoming contaminated by political forces, just like religion and politics are in bed together.

            I agree and it is those who benefit by that contamination that I refer to as "high priests", not science itself.

            But we are human and all knowledge, neutral or not, comes at some cost. Science, like religion and politics is already corrupt and has been for quite some time. Corrupt humans transfer the cost to others for their own benefit. And we are all corrupt at some level.

            Sorry, like I said, I'm in a cynical mood this evening.

            1. profile image0
              Baileybearposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              Yes, the reality is that many humans are corrupt.  I despise politics. I despise how the corrupt get to decide how society gets to operate. 

              Yes, this has been happening in science too. Like the global warming stuff.  I think that temperatures have changed globally for eons.  But the "scientists" that signed up for this now have jobs to keep, even if they don't believe in it.  I really enjoy science, many people with integrity do, but it's sad that corruption penetrates everything.

              Is there anything that hasn't been corrupted by politics these days?  Look at sport, food choices, pharmaceuticals, the jobs we have etc.  Religion has been around for a long time, so maybe that's why it's so corrupted?  Even history is corrupted - the way it is reported depends on the bias and personal beliefs of the person reporting it. 

              I've been a skeptic for years.  I'm not cynical about everything - mainly politics, including work politics.

              Maybe someone can write a not-too-depressing hub on all this?  Don't think it will be me - I've got at least half a dozen other hubs waiting to be written.

    2. profile image0
      Baileybearposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      it comes down to ethics - which are subjective.  eg there was outcry when IVF was first developed, but now it's become so "normal" that christians use it too. 
      I think technically it is possible to create a "designer" human with mixed and matched genetic material, but is it desirable. The movie Gattaca explores this scenario (where only the "genetically superior" are valued).

      1. BDazzler profile image82
        BDazzlerposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Yeah, see my second response to Qwark ...

        I'm feeling especially cynical this evening.

        1. profile image0
          Baileybearposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          yeah, read your comment.

          Sadly, the more "progress" humans make, the worse off they become.  And, no, religion has no answers for me.

  23. insearchof truth profile image84
    insearchof truthposted 6 years ago

    When will humans be able to create a soul....

    1. qwark profile image60
      qwarkposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      ...define soul for me pls...ty
      Qwark

      1. insearchof truth profile image84
        insearchof truthposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        The part of man which has experiences that we can not explain.

        The intuitive part of us which makes our hair go up when danger is near.

        The reason we can reason where animals can not.

        The part of us that dares to dream.

        The part of us that dares to love.

        The soul, if I could define it scientifically I could, but it is the part for which there is no scientific explaination. The closest I can get is  - The part of a person which led to an experiment weighing the body before and after life expiring, showing a consistant lighter weight after death consistant with a spiritual part of us leaving the body.

        1. qwark profile image60
          qwarkposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          insearch:
          Sorry, that's just an opinion...worth about a dime a dozen.
          When ya get serious, try again.
          Qwark
          PS...by the way, WE ARE ANIMALS!

          1. Druid Dude profile image59
            Druid Dudeposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            The Austrians already beat them to it. Arnold Scharzenegger. The Govenator. Hasta La Vista BABY!

          2. insearchof truth profile image84
            insearchof truthposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            qwark,

            It is all just our opinion, even science is just a series of tested theories.  So what is fact?  What is real?  Who determines reality?  Why is my opinion invalid when you are happy to make your own?  I mean it is just your opinion that it is just an opinion really.  We could go round and round in circles forever. 

            We are animals is just your opinion.  Worth about a dime a dozen really.  When you get serious, try again.

        2. Pcunix profile image88
          Pcunixposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          There is no part for which there is no explanation.

    2. Pcunix profile image88
      Pcunixposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Never.

      Because no such thing exists.

      1. insearchof truth profile image84
        insearchof truthposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Hey Pcunix,

        Imagine for a minute a caveman, and he is presented with a torch.  How would he explain the light?  How would he even conceive electricity?  Perhaps he would work out his own explaination of the light being a trapped piece of sun, or a tiny fire in the glass. 

        This is just like us trying to explain things like out of body experiences, near death experiences, ghosts, supernatural phenomenums, people who dream things that come true etc etc.  All of the above I am sure you could find an scientific explaination, just like the caveman. 

        This caveman thinks we have a soul.

        1. Pcunix profile image88
          Pcunixposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Except that we have explained out of body and nde's. We know what causes them and how to induce them.  We also know that no 'supernatural" thing or action has ever proved to be anything but natural.  No ghosts, no gods, no souls.

          1. insearchof truth profile image84
            insearchof truthposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            I used to have the same view, and found great peace by the scientific explaination of these things. That's cool Pcunix. I know where you are coming from.

    3. profile image0
      luabuposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      hi insearch of truth  /great idea for a name
      i was on this hub in the early days
      back to see how things are going

      all living cretures have souls
      it is part of what they are
      it is as  valid an existence as yours and mine
      it is a bodily thing and they are going to find it and put it in a cloned body
      it is the bit of your psyche that tells you you are you
      that may be it's only function this soul thing
      i have a labrador dog and he's heading in the same direction as i am

      1. insearchof truth profile image84
        insearchof truthposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Thank you Iuabu, that was what I was talking about.

  24. profile image62
    BestConcernsposted 6 years ago

    It was the time when people used to think that "MARY HAD A LITTLE LAMB" invention by thomas addison was something extraordinary.

    Then the railway track telegraph was an eureka

    See! how millions of tons of an airplane floats in air(with no support!!!!)

    and similarly a millions of tons of a ship floats in the sea!

    So!!!!

  25. qwark profile image60
    qwarkposted 6 years ago

    Mary had a little lamb
       she fed it castor oil!
    Every time it jumped the fence,
       it fertilized the soil!

    Mary figgered out how to use her lamb to create new life!!
    Thumbs up Mary!!
    Qwark   smile:

  26. Jaggedfrost profile image83
    Jaggedfrostposted 6 years ago

    Or maybe God isn't in cloning at all.

  27. profile image62
    BestConcernsposted 6 years ago

    Well all human abilities and techniques are so primitive compared to the vast knowledge of the whole universe and beyond.
    God has bestowed upon a limited access to the information to mankind and that too upon His Will.

    If you see the structure of any creation...it is practically impossible to recreate even a bit of it one to all.We can only work on the interface to understand things and interfere with them.

    1. qwark profile image60
      qwarkposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      ...purely "babble."
      Was that an example of speaking-in-tongues?
      Qwark

    2. profile image0
      luabuposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      hi bestconcerns
      i'm with qwark on this
      it sounds like a tower  of babble
      a smoke screen of wishful thinking

      the point is man is not going to try to create /he is going to take
           a part of the brain of one person and put it into the cloned younger body of the same person


      meet your new God

  28. Raghavzx profile image61
    Raghavzxposted 6 years ago

    No I believe in reserving the Individuality of a person and cloning will defy the natural process carried on earth by the mother Nature . And It can bring unknown disasters to human kind
    I object to it

    1. profile image62
      BestConcernsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      You expressed you opinion in a very beautiful way!

      We should be comfortable on a good thing that it probably wont happen in our living timespan at least.And we dono about the future!

    2. qwark profile image60
      qwarkposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Rag:
      Not so.
      Is man a "natural result" of Mother Natures processes?
      Of course!
      Mother Nature gifted her creation with intelligence, curiosity, imagination, desire and an ability to "do."
      If/when man clones any life, it will be an act that "nature," thoughtlessy, intended.
      Man is profoundly involved in his evolution.
      His evolved abilities and actions are part and parcel of the processes of his evolution.
      Regardless of whether or not you are into his progression or regression, man WILL, if he lasts long enuf, create a new species of human life.
      He is doing what comes naturally. Yes, it can be disasterous.
      Qwark

  29. profile image62
    BestConcernsposted 6 years ago

    well just a comment dear....you may differ...

  30. Disturbia profile image60
    Disturbiaposted 6 years ago

    Why do we want to create humans in a lab anyway when we've been doing just fine creating them in bed, on the living room sofa, in the back seat of cars, or on lonely beaches at sunset.

  31. profile image62
    BestConcernsposted 6 years ago

    LOL....@ Disturbia.

 
working