Adult Stem Cells vs Embryonic Stem Cells.

happyjack27 · Post by **happyjack27** » Mon Dec 20, 2010 7:03 pm

Diogenes wrote:
happyjack27 wrote:
TDPerk wrote: It's perfectly rational, and the rationale of it has been outlined more than once here. You, per Adam of the Mythbusters, are rejecting reality and substituting your own.

The statement of rejecting reality is all you can say, and I expect you to keep on saying it. It is hard to accept a sunk cost will have a lesser return than one not taken, but whether by foresight or happenstance, in subsidizing stem-like-cells derived from adults and not embryonic stem cells, the US has taken fundamentally more productive course.

It is possible the issues of immune system interference/rejection and of teratomas--which plague embyonic stem cell therapies to degree unique to them and not adult stem cells--can be overcome with a far greater effort then can produce the same therapies from adult derived cells. Try to make the case the effort should be undertaken. Go'head.

There was nothing of any particular religion in the decision to ban embryonic stem cell funding; so your foolish blanket statement is exactly tantamount to claiming the human conscience has no place in politics.

I could certainly agree the last 70 years or so of your nation's politics show evidence of having been ruled by that notion to an almost unique degree. That would be an over-generalization.

But not nearly enough of one to require any excuse or apology when contrasted to either your claim that persons with religiously inspired feelings on a political question should have no franchise, or to the corollary which you are necessarily implying to be true--that atheism is the epitome of rational thought, and that such rational thought is all that can appropriately rule political questions.
on the matter of antidisestablishmentarism, the purpose and role of a government is wholly secular. there is not and never will be any practical utility for it to excercise any role or make any decisions whatsoever concerning religion or the beliefs or ideas thereof. all of its considerations, all of its roles, all of its functions, are wholly practical.

the moment its decisions, actions, or what have you become religious in any way, it becomes an accretion of social power directed by a minority with the purpose of exercising authority arbitrarily over a people without their consent or regard for it. in a word, it becomes tyrannical. one of the primary purposes of a government by the people is to protect against _precisely_ this. and for very, VERY good reasons, which should be obvious. if the reasons are not obvious to anyone, well they need only take a candid look at history. history leaves no doubt on this matter.

so to say it plays no role in government decisions is a monumental understandment. it is imperative to the security and well being of the populace that it never does.

Strange... I thought i'd seen some stuff you wrote that wasn't idiocy.

great argument. you've made a lot of valid points there. i'll get back after researching that and maybe i'll come back with some deeper sublteties. but i might just come back convinced.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Mon Dec 20, 2010 7:05 pm

happyjack27 wrote:
mdeminico wrote:
happyjack27 wrote: i know, right?

by his definition getting a haircut is murdering babies.
No, a haircut (or better described, cutting out an organ) is human life, the specialized cells for human life. An unborn baby is a HUMAN BEING.
you obviously don't understand what you're talking about. an embryo at the stage of development in question is about as much a human being and as much an unborn baby as a bunch of skin cells.

And you claim HE doesn't understand what he's talking about! Perhaps an analogy is in order.

You understand computer programing a bit, if I recall some of what you have written. Remember when software was sold as a compressed file on a series of disks? (Autocad, or Word Perfect, for example.)

Once the process was initiated, all of the files had to be copied and decompressed until the installation was complete. If it was interrupted for any reason, it would crash and have to be started all over.

Well that "Install.exe" program was analogous to an embryo. Skin cells are analogous to a "file.txt" or some other file type which is constantly recreated or reproduced as a normal component of the proper operation of the program.

Here's the funny thing. The companies that sold the software didn't give you a discount if you bought the program in compressed form. Apparently they felt that the value of the software was based on it's potential, and they placed the same value on the "embryonic" version as they did on the "Adult" version.

Funny how people can be completely sensible in how they view things when they have no emotional attachment to a rationalized outcome.

happyjack27 wrote: (and under the circumstances has about as much chance of becoming a human life as a skin cell.) which was exactly my point. ironic that it is precisely what you still don't understand.

People like you used to say "Geez, next thing you know they'll say beating my black slave is abusing another human being".
and i suppose this egregious and highly inappropriate insult of me that came way out of left field is your special way of showing "respect for [your fellow human being]. "?

It might be an inappropriate if it were not true. It is true. Black slaves could be beaten or killed, they could be raped or tortured. They were not considered to be the same thing as a "citizen."

At one time, every black person had the same legal status as an embryo. Good people changed that attitude and made the laws reflect that change in attitude. Funny thing, after the abolitionists outlawed slavery, they worked to outlaw Abortion in the United States, and they succeeded!

Evil people have been working ever since to re-legitimize both Abortion AND Slavery, with all of us as the slaves.

happyjack27 · Post by **happyjack27** » Mon Dec 20, 2010 7:07 pm

wow. diogenes, i am done. until you start making rational arguments (for instance, comparing cell development with file compression?!?! that analogy is wrong in so many ways.) -- which frankly i'm not sure you're capable of (equating abortion to slavery?!?!) -- i see no point in any of this.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Mon Dec 20, 2010 7:15 pm

happyjack27 wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
happyjack27 wrote: i would go much further with that statement, (ultimately leading to many simplifications)...

and i could back it up with evidence...

but then again, religion is based on not having evidence, so i suppose from that perspective actually having evidence would put me at a disadvantage ...

if you stand folly on its head, is it still folly?

You have created a straw man regarding religion.

Religion is the sum total of past knowledge about human behavior simplified into a mythology.

I try to explain this to people all the time. It's a lot easier to tell people not to do something because "God said so." than it is to explain why drinking blood and eating pork is dangerous because of the high propensity of pathogens involved. (Especially when no body knew what a pathogen was.)

It's likewise a lot easier to tell people not to commit adultery because "God Said so." than to explain that you may start a blood feud between families which might result in a great deal of blood letting among otherwise friends and allies.

Religion is a brilliantly conceived tool for getting people to behave in such a way as to benefit the survival chances of a community without going through the unfeasible task of explaining to each and every one of them why they should behave counter to their whims and instincts.
i agree with you, save a few minor unimportant subtleties. (e.g. certainly not a "sum total" in that it is far from comprehensive, esp. compared to the academics fields.) we are talking about two different aspects and in so doing we do not contradict each other.

you are saying their behavior is directed towards constructive ends by irrational and unempirical means (such as mythos), even if/when there is rational and empirical justification, because it is easier to teach some people/for some people to learn. e.g. because some people's minds are more given to fancy than reason. i am implying that it sometimes seems quite pointless to reason with such people. and them having been taught by way of fancy rather than reason or in any case prefering those methods - giving them the more weight - certainly doesn't help things. it can be detrimental to their critical reasoning / formal operational skills. to the point of making them actively act against it by way of their reliance on irrational mechanisms (many of them instinctual) that, while preserving a positive self-image and a set of behaviors that in most everyday situations provide a decent fit to their circumstances - are naturally opposed to critical reasoning and formal operational thinking. skills that are _essential_ for dealing with complex ideas. so like i said we are talking about two different aspects of the same thing.

Yes.

Did you ever see the movie "Idiocracy"? Remember when the Hero tried to explain to them that they couldn't water their crops with Brawndo because the plants didn't like it? Nobody believed him because "Brawndo's got what plants crave. It's got electrolytes."

After repeatedly trying to convince them how he knew the plants didn't like it, he finally explained that He could talk to plants, and the plants told him they didn't like Brawndo.

That is the manner in which Religion has served mankind for the betterment of mankind. It is unfortunate that people cannot become enlightened enough for reason to work on the masses, but it is how it is.

mdeminico · Post by **mdeminico** » Mon Dec 20, 2010 7:21 pm

Ok folks, it's all really simple.

SCOREBOARD:
Adult Stem Cells: 72
Embryonic Stem Cells: 0

http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/treatments.htm

happyjack27 · Post by **happyjack27** » Mon Dec 20, 2010 7:22 pm

Diogenes wrote: Did you ever see the movie "Idiocracy"? Remember when the Hero tried to explain to them that they couldn't water their crops with Brawndo because the plants didn't like it? Nobody believed him because "Brawndo's got what plants crave. It's got electrolytes."

After repeatedly trying to convince them how he knew the plants didn't like it, he finally explained that He could talk to plants, and the plants told him they didn't like Brawndo.

That is the manner in which Religion has served mankind for the betterment of mankind. It is unfortunate that people cannot become enlightened enough for reason to work on the masses, but it is how it is.

oh yeah, i get what you're saying. people's brains are structured differently. it is what it is. and sometimes you DO have to pretend to talk to plants to get through to people. i just wish it weren't so common.

happyjack27 · Post by **happyjack27** » Mon Dec 20, 2010 7:26 pm

mdeminico wrote:Ok folks, it's all really simple.

SCOREBOARD:
Adult Stem Cells: 72
Embryonic Stem Cells: 0

http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/treatments.htm

suffice it to say i don't exactly trust the impartialness of that site.

mdeminico · Post by **mdeminico** » Mon Dec 20, 2010 7:28 pm

happyjack27 wrote: you obviously don't understand what you're talking about. an embryo at the stage of development in question is about as much a human being and as much an unborn baby as a bunch of skin cells. (and under the circumstances has about as much chance of becoming a human life as a skin cell.) which was exactly my point. ironic that it is precisely what you still don't understand.

No, you obviously don't understand. A fertilized egg (or "fetus" as you call it) is a complete human being at the earliest stage of development, wholly unique from any other human being that has ever existed.

All natural events continuing to take place, that HUMAN BEING will grow into a full size baby, then into a toddler, a small child, a large child, a teenager, a young adult, a middle age adult, then an elderly person, and finally will die some day.

All natural events continuing to take place, that "bunch of skin cells" will sit there and die.

happyjack27 wrote:
People like you used to say "Geez, next thing you know they'll say beating my black slave is abusing another human being".
and i suppose this egregious and highly inappropriate insult of me that came way out of left field is your special way of showing "respect for [your fellow human being]. "?

It's pointing out the fact that disgusting arguments like the one you use to defend the murder of another human being have been used in the past to defend brutality against another set of human beings.

mdeminico · Post by **mdeminico** » Mon Dec 20, 2010 7:35 pm

Diogenes wrote:Religion is a brilliantly conceived tool for getting people to behave in such a way as to benefit the survival chances of a community without going through the unfeasible task of explaining to each and every one of them why they should behave counter to their whims and instincts.

Not to turn this into a debate with you, because we pretty much agree on most things, just food for thought:

Perhaps, just perhaps, Religion was created by an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent God who created us and knows the inner workings of our minds and bodies better than we ever could dream to understand them, and who sets those rules for us so that we could have the best possible life.

Take for instance the rule to marry but one woman, not have sex before marriage, and only have sex with that one person, your wife. Modern science has done studies and finally realized that this is a good idea, that there's legitimate hormones that are released that generate a bonding between two people when they're, well, in the act. If that bonding is applied to another person, and they separate, it is like taking off a band-aid and sticking it somewhere else, it hurts and it's not as sticky as it used to be, reducing the effectiveness of the bond between those two people, and often times (not always) resulting in rocky relationships and/or divorce.

The amount of collaboration and communication tools we have in existence today, we can look at trends and data and see that sleeping around isn't good. The level of collaboration needed to make such a hard-and-fast rule in a society 5000 years ago didn't exist.

happyjack27 · Post by **happyjack27** » Mon Dec 20, 2010 7:38 pm

mdeminico wrote:
happyjack27 wrote: you obviously don't understand what you're talking about. an embryo at the stage of development in question is about as much a human being and as much an unborn baby as a bunch of skin cells. (and under the circumstances has about as much chance of becoming a human life as a skin cell.) which was exactly my point. ironic that it is precisely what you still don't understand.
No, you obviously don't understand. A fertilized egg (or "fetus" as you call it) is a complete human being at the earliest stage of development, wholly unique from any other human being that has ever existed.

we are not talking about fetuses.

All natural events continuing to take place, that HUMAN BEING will grow into a full size baby, then into a toddler, a small child, a large child, a teenager, a young adult, a middle age adult, then an elderly person, and finally will die some day.

no it won't. i thought i already made that clear. we're not talking about an embryo inside a womb. we are talking about a small number of undifferentiated cells _outside_ a womb that will never, even with the best medical technology known to man, _ever_ develop. "all natural events continuing to take place" the cells will quickly cease to function and be eaten by bacteria. do you understand? please remember this and incorporate this fact into your future arguments. i do not with to continue repeating it. that gets rather tedious.

happyjack27 wrote:
People like you used to say "Geez, next thing you know they'll say beating my black slave is abusing another human being".
and i suppose this egregious and highly inappropriate insult of me that came way out of left field is your special way of showing "respect for [your fellow human being]. "?
It's pointing out the fact that disgusting arguments like the one you use to defend the murder of another human being have been used in the past to defend brutality against another set of human beings.

firstly, the word "disgusting" is a judgement you made and i have no idea why. secondly, you _clearly_ don't even understand ANY of my arguments in the first place. and finally, no it hasn't. which would be clear to you if you made any effort whatsoever to even UNDERSTAND WHAT I AM SAYING.

mdeminico · Post by **mdeminico** » Mon Dec 20, 2010 7:41 pm

happyjack27 wrote:
mdeminico wrote:Ok folks, it's all really simple.

SCOREBOARD:
Adult Stem Cells: 72
Embryonic Stem Cells: 0

http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/treatments.htm
suffice it to say i don't exactly trust the impartialness of that site.

Well considering that site has references you can look at for yourself, why don't you show me your facts?

http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/asc-refs.pdf
http://www.stemcellresearch.org/old/Pre ... mCells.pdf

I'll wait patiently, while I move on with my life because it'll take you a very very very long time to find your facts.

happyjack27 · Post by **happyjack27** » Mon Dec 20, 2010 7:43 pm

mdeminico wrote:
happyjack27 wrote:
mdeminico wrote:Ok folks, it's all really simple.

SCOREBOARD:
Adult Stem Cells: 72
Embryonic Stem Cells: 0

http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/treatments.htm
suffice it to say i don't exactly trust the impartialness of that site.
Well considering that site has references you can look at for yourself, why don't you show me your facts?

http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/asc-refs.pdf
http://www.stemcellresearch.org/old/Pre ... mCells.pdf

I'll wait patiently, while I move on with my life because it'll take you a very very very long time to find your facts.

the question is not whether the facts posted on it are correct. the question is whether they are complete.

mdeminico · Post by **mdeminico** » Mon Dec 20, 2010 7:47 pm

happyjack27 wrote: we are not talking about fetuses.

Look, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here, and assume that you agree that it would be wrong to murder an unborn child in order to perform medical research on it.

That being said, my entire point was, in order to perform embryonic stem cell research, you must destroy a fertilized egg. Researchers have not found any way around that.

If that fertilized egg is outside the womb, then yes, that child is in suspended development, and if they switched off the power, that baby would die. That doesn't mean that we should leave that child in suspended development forever, nor should we murder it in order to extract its stem cells.

mdeminico · Post by **mdeminico** » Mon Dec 20, 2010 7:49 pm

happyjack27 wrote:
mdeminico wrote:
happyjack27 wrote: suffice it to say i don't exactly trust the impartialness of that site.
Well considering that site has references you can look at for yourself, why don't you show me your facts?

http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/asc-refs.pdf
http://www.stemcellresearch.org/old/Pre ... mCells.pdf

I'll wait patiently, while I move on with my life because it'll take you a very very very long time to find your facts.
the question is not whether the facts posted on it are correct. the question is whether they are complete.

I'm just saying, show me your facts that show the score even slightly less lopsided. Like I said, as of 2007 (that's a long time ago considering the recent advances in medical research) the score was 72 to 0 in favor of adult stem cells. It's probably way more lopsided right now.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Mon Dec 20, 2010 7:53 pm

Skipjack wrote:
Religion is the sum total of past knowledge about human behavior simplified into a mythology.
Not true for every religion. The same can be said about any ideology.
Also, the emphasis is on "past knowledge".
Much of it has long been discovered to be wrong, idealistic and not really dealing with human nature as it actually exists.

Perhaps, but It has been right more often than wrong. All in all, it has been a net plus.

Skipjack wrote: This is the same reason why Marx and Engels are wrong also and why Hitler was wrong too.

They studied history as an abstract, and with too small of a sample to work with. Religion remembers history as a series of dire consequences, and has data samples as big as the population it serves. (Priests and Preachers deal with deaths and family crises all throughout their lives. They have a lot of experience with lifestyles that don't work out well for those who lived them.)

Skipjack wrote: They are all based on past knowledge that usually has long been disproven, or has long been shown to not work with actual human behaviour by modern science.
The difference between science and religion is that science is willing to change and revert its stance on a subject if proven wrong. Religion and ideologies are based on so called "eternal truths" that can not be changed.

One would not think so if you perused this archive.

Skipjack wrote: On the embroyo being a human being thing:
It is not a human being. It is a bunch of cells that could make a human being. Your definition of human being is very difficult to justify, especially given modern technology and knowledge.

It is a compressed human being with it's own unique DNA. It is nothing else.

But suppose we discount this obvious interpretation. Fine. Using your logic, when does it become a human being? Some arbitrary point in time after creation?

Skipjack wrote: Do you call a just fertilized egg a human being? What about an unfertilized egg?

Yes. No.

Skipjack wrote:Most women have misscarriages at least once in their lives without even knowing it.

Miscarriage is unfortunate. But they are unintentional.

Skipjack wrote: In Austria it is common to do an abortion on the remains of the fetus/placenta etc in that case. So would you call that murder?

Not at all. It is a necessary medical procedure.