Hi Elihal. I said I'd get back to you on this, and I try to keep my promises. You have raised some very good points. Keep in mind that anything I say is based on my own education, experience and opinion. I have to say that because I don't want anyone to say I am trying to claim that I know "the truth"My trip to Alberta was fascinating. I loved the wildlife, the mountains, the fossils, the people (Western Canadians are so friendly). I would go back in an instant.

One of the most interesting things to me (as a geologist) was the Burgess Shale. That is a rock outcropping which contains some of the most ancient fossils on earth. That single geological stratum contains evidence that evolutionary biologists are still trying to unravel. It has previously unknown links and some of the transitional fossils that show how diverse life was back in the Cambrian period. Almost all of those species are extinct now, but they had their day. Did they die because they fouled their environment with their wastes or because they exhausted their food sources? We don't know all the answers. Most likely, they were replaced by more efficient creatures. The study of paleontology is a fascinating walk through time.

Hobbes was correct in his way. The history of mankind has been one of selfishness and greed. And we have already done much to alter the face of the earth. More than we are likely to ever be able to repair. But we needn't worry that we are going to destroy life, because, as the Burgess Shale shows, life is incredibly adaptable. What we are greatly in danger of is destroying ourselves. Humans, while they are very smart, are not as hardy as some other creatures, and a global change in environment or pathogens or pollution could easily wipe us out.

In trying to prevent this (by learning and technology) I am acting in greedy, selfish self-interest, because I want humans to survive. I like to think, though, that it is "enlightened self-interest". It's the sam Idea Hobbes had, but with more information available.
Canada is much more environmentally conscious than the US, something which I envy you of. But the answers are not simple. All the solar and wind technology in the world will not replace the amount of energy generated by fossil fuels, like oil and coal. Still, it is a good start. (I buy my electricity from a company that uses 100% wind power). We definately need to incorporate these technologies into our lives. Still, these technologies have their downsides too. Windmills (some people think) are very ugly, and they kill birds by the thousands. Also, if they were everywhere, it might be possible to affect global climate patterns by altering wind currents. Not a great fear at this time, but something to guard against. Solar energy seems clean, but the manufacture of solar panels releases large amounts of PCBs, (Polychlorinated Biphenyls) which are very bad for the enviroment. And neither solar nor wind energy are reliable. They will not work in areas with little wind or where there is not a lot of sunshine year round.

So you see, everything has a price, and nothing is universally good. The biggest thing we can do to solve the energy problem is to use less of it. Drive a smaller car. Use carpools. Turn the heat down in the winter and the air conditioning down in the summer. Shower with a friend. (I particularly like the last part when the friend is of the opposite sex )
Geothermal energy is darn nearly perfect. Unfortunately, it is only available in very few parts of the world. But it could be better used, no doubt. And yes, technologies have backfired many times. DDT saved us from damage by pests, but harmed the environment in other ways (although there is still a great deal of controversy about this.) But this is how we learn. We will make mistakes. The only fatal mistake would be not learning from our mistakes.
Zebra Mussels, I believe you are referring to. They truly are a menace. Also, the lampreys have displaced a number of species in the Great Lakes. They used to be only in the near-ocean areas, but because we dug channels to connect the lakes for ship traffic, they have moved to areas where they couldn't get to before.

But it is not completely correct to assume that all of these problems were caused by humans. Species have been displacing other species as long as there has been life on earth, the Burgess Shale being a good example of what used to be. The reason you find kangaroos, koalas and other marsupials in the Australian continent and nowhere else is because it was isolated from the main continents about the time that placental mammals were on the rise. Placentals are much more efficient than marsupials, and they have replaced them in almost every place in the world except Australia. Now it looks like the placental rabbits may be more competitive than the local marsupials that fill the same niches, and in a few thousand years, there may be no more marsupials. Is this because of man? Possibly we sped up the process, but placentals were bound to get to Australia eventually, sometimes by rafting on huge mats of vegetation that wash into the sea.

It could be said that man cannot go against nature, because man is a part of nature. We evolved by the same process as all other creatures. Yes, we have found ways to manipulate the environment, but so have many other creatures. (I can give you more examples if you're interested.) Earth will survive after humans, though it will be changed, just as it has been changed by everything that came before us.
LOL! You are a gem, elihal. I wish I were your teacher. You realize that there are many sides to each question and that there are no perfectly "correct" answers. We learn as much as we can, and we do the best we can, always in the effort to keep humans doing well in our own Hobbsian, selfish ways. Which way is best? We'll have to wait to find that answer. Perhaps it is in severely reducing human poplulation. Perhaps it is in a return to a less technological age. Perhaps we will escape to other planets. There's still a lot to learn. I am very happy that I live in an age where I can learn. Our predecessors who drove herds of buffalo off the cliff did not have that luxury.

That was a good post elihal, but as you probably realize, you are mostly hashing these things out in your own mind. But I do not think you have done so to your own detriment. Quite the opposite. You have indeed shown yourself "open to learn". And you can learn a lot from other people, including your teachers, your parents, people who discuss things on forums like this, and many other places. But none of us are all knowledgable, and none of us are right about everything. The most important thing is critical thinking. That is the ability to sort through the things that you have been told and see which ones have evidence and are internally consistant. If you find inconsistancies in what people say, then you should reserve "belief" until you have resolved those inconsistancies.

If I have said anything to you that doesn't make sense, I hope you will call me out on it. I may be able to clarify the inconsistancy. Or quite possibly, I may find that even my own "beliefs" are not supportable and I will have to readjust the way I think. That is one reason I come to this board where I discuss things with people that I completely disagree with on most issues. You never learn anything from people who think the same way you do.

I know DNA is held together by hydrogen bonds and I wasn't referring to Van der Waals forces pulling the atoms apart because I do know they are very weak. I am talking about the proteins that form the cells out of the stem cells in a zygote. This protein's path can be affected by Van der Waals forces but yet it somehow goes to its designated destination. The five leg baby is an example. I didn't mean it literally.

Thank you for the refreshment of biology. This stuff gets rusty you know.

Seeing that most of my points have been misinterpreted I will try to clarify a bit. What you added did make a lot of sense especially a reference to my 10th grade teacher who didn't know what he was teaching. However you didn't add anything and made me look stupid. If you study biology and see how much it explains then you'll realize that most of it that has an explanation is one of a wonder and it is unkown why DNA works as it does. What's more wonderous is why the code for life (64 codon) is the same for all living things. Nobody knows why rRNA does what it does and how it a zygote develops into what it develops. Science here explains it but it fails to explain what it has explained.

I realize that I might irritate you and your fellow people on the forum a lot just because I am religious, but do not insult my inteligence, because I have a degree in biology from the University of Sofia and I'm not some 15 year old high school student as you seem to think I am. You contribute logic which is good, but logic isn't facts, and if you don't know them don't try to ridicule mine.

"Wise men make proverbs, but fools repeat them" -Samuel Palmer

This is true. "Junk" DNA is barely trying to be found out what it does.

Scientists might be able to clone people, they have already cloned a sheep, Dolly, but there will be problems and it is immoral to do so under such conditions.

As I recall, and my memory is rusty, the protein doesn't chart a path to its designated destination, it is carried in the body fluids and when it hits a receptor match (the appropriate destination) it is captured. I may be wrong about this, but a mechanism similar to this would mean that body components are not guided by a divine hand, but assembled by natural reactions according to the "blueprint". But even if it is not yet understood, that is no reason to say "it must be God". It simply means it is not yet understood.

I know all too well. I've forgotten more than I remember.
My apologies. I did not intend to make you look stupid, but I believe the things you are saying are incorrect, perhaps based on faulty or incomplete teaching. You were using that misunderstanding to make claims about the necessity for a God. The only way I can respond to that is to challenge your understanding.

Believe me, I am ignorant about a lot of things (ask Diggy). I try not to be insulted when people point out my ignorance, but I admit, it is human nature to respond to this sort of thing with... at least annoyance. Again, I apologize.
It does explain a lot, though not everything by any means. But science is only a tool for answering the question of "how". It is not for answering the question of "why". That is for philosophy.

If you assume there is a "why", then you are automatically assuming that this was planned. Thus, your conclusions are driven by your assumptions. I am saying, "there may be no why". Do you accept that as a possibility?
No, you don't irritate me at all. You respond to the points that are made and you stay on topic. Your manners are exemplary. I am not always the most diplomatic in the way I say things either.

I apologize if I have insulted your intelligence. I simply do not agree with many of the "facts" you state about chemistry and biology. I also have a degree in biology with a minor in chemistry, not that this makes me correct.

Still, I think you are making the error of thinking that because you have reached the limit of your admittedly-better-than-most knowledge, you assume that things beyond that limit could not occur without God, and I think that is a logical as well as a factual error.

Take, for example, science two hundred years ago. Suppose a person got sick for no apparent reason. Since the germ theory of disease had not yet been discovered, that person might have thought (and some still do) that it was impossible to get that sickness by any known means, therefore it must be God. That would have been a mistake in logic, brought on by their ignorance of what was possible and by their assumption that there was a "purpose" for them getting sick.

And I reiterate, it is not possible to know everything, so ALL of us are ignorant. I believe it would be hubris if I were to declare that supernatural forces must exist, simply because I had reached the limit of my knowledge.No, logic depends on assumptions and evidence. But you don't have a different set of "facts" from me. Facts are the same for everyone. That is why I try not to claim facts, but only evidence. I do not believe that some of the positions you have stated are supported by evidence, and I explain why. That is how debate works. This is not personal. You seem like a very nice person.

(But don't go insulting 15-year-old high school students either. They may have less knowledge, but they may be more intelligent than either of us. )
LOL! Is that a proverb you just repeated?

But I will try to behave less condescendingly in the future. It's just my nature to be a smart-aleck.

One possibility (though not the only one) is that junk DNA doesn't do anything. It may simply serve as a "spacer" between useful information, or it may be a remnant from some evolutionary predecessor which no longer serves a function. The human body is full of things (like the appendix and wisdom teeth) which don't appear to have a function, but may have had one long ago.

Did you know that some snakes (in the Boa family) have rudimentary hip bones? Scientists believe that this is because they evolved from legged lizards and haven't yet lost all their traits.
They have also cloned a cat and numerous other organisms. Yes there are lots of problems and many of the cloned animals fail and have to be destroyed, usually in the embryo stage. But if these problems can be overcome, I see no reason why it is more immoral to clone humans than to clone cats.

I would take it as far as cloning extra body parts, say like a kidney for someone who has kidney disease, but I wouldn't to see them take it any further than that.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Though it might be possible in the future, right now it is impossible to clone organs. (Actually, this wouldn't be "cloning" because cloning starts from an embryo, and there is no such thing as a "kidney embryo". It might be called "grafting" or something.)

But it does raise some interesting ethical questions. Suppose you took a sample of your own DNA and had it cloned to grow a duplicate of yourself? It's your DNA, right? You should be able to do anything you like with it, provided it doesn't harm others.

Now suppose you took the cloned embryo and used drugs or surgery to destroy its higher brain functions, leaving only a brain-dead body that you kept on life support and used the organs if you needed them. Since the body had no "mind" (meaning in this case, higher brain functions), it could be argued that it isn't really be a person, but just an "organ garden".

Yeah, it sounds horrible, I know, but is it unethical? Why? We kill animals much more intelligent than embryos for our uses. You can't really argue that it is unethical to use products of humans, intelligent or not, unless you also condemn transplants.

I'm not saying I support this, I just think it is an interesting hypothetical question.

LOL...I used this argument, 25 years ago (!!!), in a debate class in High School. (thanks for making me feel old.)

Interesting...the science involved has advanced sooooooo much in 25 years, but the ethical questions are the same.

Of course that would be unethical. Or at least in my opinion. I mean here we are fighting for human rights and then we start to create 'life' and deny it all at the same time. Yes I agree that cloning is a wonderful, way to perserve human life, but the question must be asked, At what point do rights of clones come into affect? I mean what if just even once a clone managed to develope a mind. Their brain was not destroyed, they managed to function with out life support. Then who would look after their rights? Who would stand up for them, in the faces of people who just want their organs? There is nothing in place for a moral or ethical ruling on the what happens if?! Are we as humans mature enough and capable enough to make these dicisions should something like this ever become a realality? I personally don't think so, but maybe. We have also left out the influence of world powers, and their opinions on these such things. Churches would probably stand their with their mouths gaping until they realized the full implication of what was being done, and then I have a feeling that they would become reather vocal. Not that it would be a bad thing, but typically when a church or other large group gets involved in pollitical factors, we just open an ugly can of worms. Maybe in the future we will be able to make the decisions that we need in order to insure the rights of all those 'people' on both sides. But we may not be old enough to make the decisions now.
elihal

LOL. First you say "of course" then you say "in my opinion". No, I'm not laughing at you, I am laughing at humanity. I am amused because it is a natural progression to react to your gut instinct, then to try to reason out why you have that gut instinct. I have the same gut instinct. Is it instinctual, or perhaps some moral code that has been ground into us from day one? Most people react negatively to cannibalism too, but if you were raised as a cannibal, you would not. It makes me wonder how many of these things are coded into our genes and how many are the result of years of social indoctrination.
You can start life without starting intelligence. We do it all the time whenever we plant brainless flower seeds. Why should it be different because the brainless garden contains human DNA? How do we define "human"? The vicious battle over abortion hinges on exactly the same question. I don't have the answer, though I have opinions. But I do not wish to distract this into a different discussion.
One of the assumptions of my hypothetical question was that it would be possible to be sure that the clone never had higher brain functions. In the real world, it would be difficult to guarantee this, assuming even that such things became possible. But since we are talking "hypothetical" we can disregard aberrations. It is a "what if" question, so you can't question the "ifs". Otherwise, it becomes a different question. I applaud your ethical stance in defense of potential concious clones because it shows you are a caring person. Still, let's ignore it for the purpose of this entirely hypothetical question.
Humans make moral and ethical decisions all the time. I disagree with some. I agree with others. Certainly this is not much more difficult, ethically, than the issue over the death penalty. Humans don't agree on that one either. I don't even agree with myself, because I can see both sides of the issue, just as I can see both sides of the cloning issue. If you are asking my final opinion on what my decisions would be on this... well... wait a bit. I'm not tipping my hand just yet. I want to see how the discussion plays out.

Yep, you nailed that one. There would certainly be all sorts of very vocal and vituperative conflict between religion and "freedom" people (mostly Libertarians, as we understand them in the USA.) Does a person have the "freedom" to do whatever he or she likes with their DNA? Or does the church (or any other group) have the right to insert their ethics and override the individual's decision?

Most laws are made to prevent harm to others. Who would be harmed by cloning humans for brainless organ farms? This is with the assumption that there would be no "accidentally brainy" clones.
The question hasn't actually come up yet, but it could, and it is quite possible to happen in your lifetime. The scenario I expect is that all religions and most countries would outlaw such organ farms, but that there would be an underground black market in such things, just as there is for almost every "forbidden" thing today. We would call the black market people "immoral", and perhaps justifiably so, even though what they were doing was no more than supply and demand. There would be some rich people wouldn't care about "laws". If they could get a new heart, they wouldn't care what channels they had to go through to get what they want.

Once a thing has been discovered, it is almost impossible to keep people from trying to capitalize on it. It is another, less pretty aspect of human nature.

"Their" DNA? Sorry, Gooze, your DNA does not belong to you--you belong to your DNA. You are just your DNA's best attempt at trying to make more DNA, and nothing more.

Just as the Aesop tale tells us that the painting of a man killing a lion was painted by a man, not a lion...your "ownership" argument is obviously made by a person. How anthropocentric of you! How short-sighted and egotistical! Ignore the facts about the secondary status of humans, just because it suits your purposes! You and your kind will be the first up against the wall, come the revolution!

DNA! DNA! DNA! DNA!

brought to you by the DNA Liberation Organization

Stuff it Diggy, and your "blind watchmaker" God, Richard Dawkins too. You hippy chromasome worshipers are an evolutionary dead end. Probably because of your bleached genes.

(Sorry this smilie is just way too cute to pass up)
Quote: First you say "of course" then you say "in my opinion". No, I'm not laughing at you, I am laughing at humanity.
Don't worry about laughing at me. I rather enjoy a good laugh at my expece every now and again.
Quote: You can start life without starting intelligence. We do it all the time whenever we plant brainless flower seeds. Why should it be different because the brainless garden contains human DNA? How do we define "human"?
Can we really start life with out starting intelligence? You use flowers as an example, even flowers are capable of intelligence. Some flowers colse during the night when the tempurature is lower. Some flowers only open in the dusk. Some are capable of injestion small animals to sustain themselves. I know that you will probably show that all of these things are simply adapation, and not the result of some slight intelligence, but do we really know for sure? . What makes us as humans different from every other species on the planet. Well we have opposiable (boy did I spell that one wrong) thumbs, but then so do some primates. We have higher intelligence, but then again we have been training animals to do things for us for many years. Maybe we are just more developed, as compaired to other animals. Then we must get into the just what qualifies as developed. We can change our enviornment to suit our needs, but then some one proved that beavers do this too. Our intelligence maybe? Nah humans are not really all that smart. It might have something to do with our way of understanding what is going on in the enviornment around us. We can understand when a metor is comming towards the earth. We know about global weather patterns. On the other hand so do birds. They fly south in the winter, this shows that they are aware of the climate.
Quote:Certainly this is not much more difficult, ethically, than the issue over the death penalty.
In my opinion it is. I don't agree with the death penalty, but I can see where you are going with this. In the most basic sence the death penalty is impossed on people who have committed a hanous crime and have therefore for fit their lives. With cloning we are talking about not only playing God, but denying life to hundreds, or more, people who have not even had the chance to commit a crime. We are punishing them for being born our infreriors. Lets just take a look at my orrigional question. I asked for help to learn about the different opinions between evolution and creation. What you are proposing is that we all become creationists. When we start to manuifacture life or any part there of we are playing God. Evoluion would still paly a back stage roll, but we are talking about controlling our entire existance.
I think that we can both agree that evolution is controlled by nature. If an organisum is born with a adapation that helps them to survieve in their enviornment better, then it is more likely that they will be able to produce offspring. Eventually that abnormality if benifficial will become a trait in that population. With cloning a person could be born with out the capability of having children, a common problem, and we could simply insert a coloned uterus or any other part, maybe a ova duct, it really doesn't matter. Then that person who would never normally be capable of reproducing may have children. I'm not by anymeans saying that this is a bad thing, but we are going against mother nature, and that may possibly turn out to be a bad thing later in our human existance.
Quoteoes a person have the "freedom" to do whatever he or she likes with their DNA? Or does the church (or any other group) have the right to insert their ethics and override the individual's decision?
Lets not get in to that one. As a student in a Catholic school I am expected to follow the catholic views, but I don't personally agree with all of them.
I have to go. That ESL stuff is waiting. Why does is have to be so borning? I find myself falling asleep when I read the required materials. I think that I just need better music to listen to, while I work. Any suggestions?
elihal

elihal, I am so glad you wrote this! I am often calling on Iacchus to define his terms, and he often asks why--what is so important about it? Your question points out that different definitions of "intelligence" can give different answers to the same question. Can a plant be intelligent? Even a heliotrope following the sun, or a flytrap catching a bug, are the mechanical products of natural selection...and yet it is not unreasonable to call this intelligence (in my opinion). At the other end of the spectrum, we have human decision-making...and yet we can (and have) demonstrate that some of what we believe is rational decision-making is actually the result of biases inherent in our biological structure. By the same definition as the plants, this is still intelligence, but by other definitions, both this and the plant are the action of reflex, not intelligence. (Some cynics will debate whether intelligence exists at all, even in humans!)

Beyond that (since this is a natural selection thread), different types of "intelligence" may be better or worse for different applications. Following the path of the sun mechanically makes more sense than having to devote huge brain resources to the same task, as a human would have to do... Remember that evolution does not work toward higher or better species, and certainly not toward more intelligence...but merely to what works--what gets DNA into one more generation...

I join Gooze in thanking you for your excellent questions and inquisitive manner!

Good responses, elihal (I havent' figured out how to "cutify" your name yet). As you know, in many cases I am just playing Devil's advocate and bringing up sides that I dont' necessarily support, but which could logically be supported.

As for studying music, it needs to be non-intrusive, but not somnolent either.
I always liked one of your fellow Canadians, Joni Mitchell for studying, but I guess you would prefer something a little more current. Suzanne Vega, perhaps.

Oh, and I guess you saw Diggy's response. If you think ESL is boring, just read some of Diggy's posts.

I'm glad that you liked my last post. I was more or less just throwing out questions to see what would come up.
Gooze what does 'somnolent' mean? Could you use words that are in my dictionary? Just think of a word that should be in any dictionary and then assume that it is not (mine is probably the worst compiled dictionary in the world). As for cutifying my name, I just don't think that it is possible, or at least not if you are working from elihal.
How do you insert quotes in this program? I can't seem to figure it out.
I don't mind that you typically take the opposite side of most of my arguements. You are forcing me to think, about not only me personal ideals but also the ideals that could be held by others. Please keep it up!!
Gooze I don't think that Diggy's posts are boring. But they are like reading my social teaches notes, with out the aid of arrows to connect the thoughts. Quotes do help, but mostly all I get out of other forum topics is confused. I mean you all argure (brow-beat) might be a better word for it. Yet in the end it seems to me that you are all saying the same thing, with a few exceptions.
Until next time:
the name that is not 'cutifyable'

Well, I like big words, especially when they mean exactly what I want to say. "somnolent" means essentially "sleep-inducing", which is a nice way of sayin "boring", but of course, I'm just ribbing Diggy.

You might want to keep a shortcut to an on-line dictionary. This is the one I use
http://www.m-w.com/home.htm
You can actually install a link that lets you higlight any word on a web page, click the link, and it brings up the definition. Very helpful.
Well, I may have to make one up. I might start calling you Hally or E-Lilly. I can't make exceptions to my rule just because your name is difficult.
If you click the "quote" button, you get a reply which has the message you are replying to in quote brackets. I usually copy the whole message then paste it, edit it to the part I'm replying to, and repeat as necessary. Quote brackets are square brackets that enclose what you are saying like this:
{quote}I am replying to Hally{/quote}, except use the square bracket ([) instead of the curly bracket ({). If you say

{quote=Goozy} at the beginning, then it automatically inserts "Originally posted by Goozy" at the front.

Other things you can do with the square brackets:
{b}this makes the text bold{/b}
{u}this underlines the text{/u}
{i}this puts the text in italics {/i}

Now substituting square brackets for curly brackets you get
this makes the text bold
this underlines the text
this puts the text in italics

You can also put a quote within a quote like this:
{quote} Hally said this
{quote}and Diggy replied with this
{/quote}{/quote}

note that each beginning quote is matched by an backslashed ending quote. Replacing brackets again, you get:
Last of all, use the "preview Post" button to see if you've made any mistakes like leaving off brackets or backslashes.
Don't worry. I like being obstreperous.
One thing about forums like this is that you don't have to mince your words. You get to say exactly what you feel. I would never be this "brow-beating" in a face to face conversation, because, well, I don't know why. Something about invading their personal space or something. Diggy could probably explain it better. If you can stay awake.HAH! You wish!

Gooze,

Thanks for all the tips you posted about finding your way around and using quotes and editing features. You can tell you're a veteran forum poster.

First off Thank you Goozy with the help, in inserting quotes. I will try to use them. The dictionary link is wonderful. And speaking (well typing) of the dictionary questinons that I had, are you trying to use big words in an effort to improve my vocabulary. I mean I just finished my English 30 diplomia, but I'm sure that my teachers will thank you for this, much much later.
As for Hally, well it is most certainly unique. I think that I like it. In the end I guess that you could probably shorten my last name to
Hally. f you actually knew what my real name was you would probably find your choice quite amusing. It might me wierd to get used to though.
Diggy is really not all that borning, I was rading some of the other forum posts this morning. You and Diggy seem to play off of what echouther has to say alot. Your teasing is funny to read.
Anyway Social Current Events and ESL here I come.
As always
Hally (elihal)