|
|
[ Log In ] [ Register ]
"Chicken Dino?"
On 5/15/2015 at 5:27:15 PM, Velociraptor87 started the thread:
Scientists successfully alter chicken embryo to have a snout & palate bone instead of a beak; say it would be perfectly healthy if hatched, unsure of ethics though. Now just give it a tail.
Msg #1: On 5/15/2015 at 8:34:49 PM, Ostromite replied, saying:
Just about to post this. Arhat Abzhanov is that guy Monkipzzle was trying to work with for his insane dinosaur park.
Replies: 2
Msg #2: On 5/15/2015 at 10:28:38 PM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #1, saying:
I thought this sounded familiar!! Holy fuck. Hahahaha. I'm glad he ditched Monki.
Msg #3: On 5/16/2015 at 4:45:55 AM, Narrator replied, saying:
what exactly is the ethical argument against doing this that can't be applied to the numerous terrible things we already do to chickens? Do it
Replies: 4
Msg #4: On 5/16/2015 at 4:47:35 AM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #3, saying:
I dont think its chicken ethics so much as animal ethics in general. Probably lots of laws and loopholes.
Replies: 5
Msg #5: On 5/16/2015 at 8:06:17 AM, Narrator replied to Msg #4, saying:
but still, we pump chickens full of hormones, and genetically modify them already, and they're kept in terrible conditions. It's hypocritical for an ethics committee to have a problem with this while that is going on is all I'm saying
Replies: 6, 7
Msg #6: On 5/16/2015 at 11:31:34 AM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #5, saying:
I think it's more complicated than that.
Msg #7: On 5/16/2015 at 1:18:52 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #5, saying:
Ethics committees on scientific research have no authority over the meat industry.
Replies: 8
Msg #8: On 5/19/2015 at 7:05:08 AM, Narrator replied to Msg #7, saying:
Chickens get experimented on all the time outside of the meat industry, and those experiments can be pretty terrible, and committees on scientific research pass those. And unless people on these committees are also members of Peta, they're also morally fine with the stuff that goes down in the meat industry, regardless of their authority.
Replies: 9, 10
Msg #9: On 5/19/2015 at 10:42:44 AM, Ostromite replied to Msg #8, saying:
Are you saying anyone who's not a member of PETA tacitly approves of the cruelty done to animals in the meat industry?
Msg #10: On 5/19/2015 at 2:24:11 PM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #8, saying:
Yeah, that's kinda a slippery slope.
Msg #11: On 5/19/2015 at 4:03:46 PM, Carnotaur3 replied, saying:
That's great. Can we not get photographical evidence or do we have to take them at their word?
Replies: 12
Msg #12: On 5/19/2015 at 6:57:53 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #11, saying:
It was in a peer-reviewed journal, so I don't think it's just "taking them at their word."
Msg #13: On 5/19/2015 at 10:53:11 PM, Carnotaur3 replied, saying:
You are taking them at their word. You're taking everything at their word if you aren't there or can't be provided something tangible for you to examine.
Replies: 14
Msg #14: On 5/19/2015 at 11:06:00 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #13, saying:
Good Lord, might as well burn down the library.
Replies: 15
Msg #15: On 5/19/2015 at 11:13:06 PM, Carnotaur3 replied to Msg #14, saying:
There is absolutely nothing wrong with questioning things, Ostro. What gets me is that you assume that it's logical to accept something at face value because it was looked at and approved by a committee.
It's not like my request to see more about this isn't fair.
Replies: 16
Msg #16: On 5/19/2015 at 11:43:50 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #15, saying:
Do you even know how peer review works?
Msg #17: On 5/20/2015 at 12:19:31 AM, Carnotaur3 replied, saying:
Enlighten me.
Replies: 18
Msg #18: On 5/20/2015 at 12:27:24 AM, Ostromite replied to Msg #17, saying:
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but it's not just some committee in a room with a big stamp that reads a paper and approves it. Researchers or writers submit their work to the journal, and the journal sends the paper and all relevant materials are sent out to several doctorate-level professionals in that field (peers). Those people don't contact one another about it to avoid biasing their critiques, and they all individually review the material and write up their own documents outlining all problems they see with it. Then, those critiques are given back to the researcher to revise their paper (or it's canned on the spot if it's total bunk). Once they revise it, they have to re-submit it and the whole thing starts over again. It takes months, sometimes years, but the whole system is designed to make sure that anything published in a peer-reviewed journal can be taken as reliable and thoroughly fact-checked. It doesn't mean that everything published that way is concrete truth (especially in the humanities), but it does mean that it's practically impossible for a load of horseshit to get through.
Msg #19: On 5/20/2015 at 12:36:24 AM, Carnotaur3 replied, saying:
Well I never claimed that this was all a load of horse shit, nor that a bunch of non-biased scientists are full of it either. I'm just asking for a bit more, i.e. photographic evidence. Perhaps it's just taking its sweet precious time to arrive to the public.
EDIT: But how are the scientists unbiased to the material? Zero contact with others within the peer review doesn't mean you are unbiased.
Replies: 21
Msg #20: On 5/20/2015 at 1:01:52 AM, Narrator replied, saying:
First of all, lol @ chase.
The reason it's acceptable to accept this at "face value" is because, if it does turn out to be bullshit then.... who cares? Oh no I they made an unhatched chicken with a snout instead of a beak for a few months when really they didn't, and my life remains the same. Now if I was involved in some kind of awesome game that combined genetic engineering with gambling, and someone bet me $2,419 that no one could make a chicken have a dino snout instead of a beak, then I'd definitely want more information about this.
"Are you saying anyone who's not a member of PETA tacitly approves of the cruelty done to animals in the meat industry?"
I'm saying if you eat the chickens that area treated in that way, you can yell all you want about how unethical their treatment is, but it's all meaningless. What you do is what matters, and if you give money to the industry that you speak out against to eat their delicious chickens, you really don't have an issue with what they do, regardless of what you might say. Beliefs and convictions that aren't supported by actions are a facade.
(just to avoid confusion, I'm using "you" in the general sense here, not "you, ostromite, you hypocrite fuck" sense)
Msg #21: On 5/20/2015 at 1:17:04 AM, Ostromite replied to Msg #19, saying:
But how are the scientists unbiased to the material?
That's a fuzzy issue in the humanities where people's personal adherence to certain theoretical viewpoints often clouds their ability to detect flaws in academic writing, but in the sciences it's a pretty cut and dry matter of reviewing flaws in the methodology of the research or the logic of conclusions drawn.
I'm saying if you eat the chickens that area treated in that way, you can yell all you want about how unethical their treatment is, but it's all meaningless. What you do is what matters, and if you give money to the industry that you speak out against to eat their delicious chickens, you really don't have an issue with what they do, regardless of what you might say. Beliefs and convictions that aren't supported by actions are a facade.
Okay, but you're assuming these scientists are buying the meat in the first place. What if they are vegetarians and say this is unethical research? I understand what you're saying, but it has no actual bearing the ethical debate about this research. Even if it these scientists were hypocrites and supported industrial meat production that treats animals unethically, the case they present arguing against these experiments on ethical grounds would still be sound.
Msg #22: On 5/20/2015 at 1:28:19 AM, Carnotaur3 replied, saying:
"That's a fuzzy issue in the humanities where people's personal adherence to certain theoretical viewpoints often clouds their ability to detect flaws in academic writing, but in the sciences it's a pretty cut and dry matter of reviewing flaws in the methodology of the research or the logic of conclusions drawn."
But even in the general sense, scientists are no different than anyone else. They operate on belief systems and ego. But I do see what you're saying.
Replies: 23
Msg #23: On 5/20/2015 at 1:32:16 AM, Ostromite replied to Msg #22, saying:
But what "belief systems" could impair them when analyzing, say, the size of a control group for an experiment? Everyone will be biased in some small degree, but that's why they use multiple peers to review it. They're applying the scientific process to the peer review to even out statistical anomalies like personal bias.
Replies: 24
Msg #24: On 5/20/2015 at 1:48:56 AM, Carnotaur3 replied to Msg #23, saying:
Is it something that is unanimously agreed upon by a majority of the peers that they must go back and revise certain specific points?
Replies: 25
Msg #25: On 5/20/2015 at 8:03:40 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #24, saying:
I don't understand the question. If you're asking what happens if all the reviewers agree and say that there are specific problems with a piece of research, it will not be published until those problems are fixed.
Msg #26: On 5/20/2015 at 8:45:15 PM, Carnotaur3 replied, saying:
I'm saying, if one person doesn't catch any inconsistencies or has some the others don't, how does that work?
Replies: 27
Msg #27: On 5/21/2015 at 12:06:21 AM, Ostromite replied to Msg #26, saying:
It would depend on what the specific problems were, whether they were issues with the paper itself or the methodology of the experiments. I can't really elucidate on all the possibilities involved when it comes to evolutionary biology, which is well outside my area of expertise.
Msg #28: On 5/21/2015 at 4:54:30 AM, Coprolite replied, saying:
"what exactly is the ethical argument against doing this that can't be applied to the numerous terrible things we already do to chickens? Do it"
I think you're looking at this from the wrong angle. I see genetically manipulating chickens to be more like their dinosaur ancestors as reparations for all the terrible things we've done to chickens. "We're sorry for the McNugget guys, why don't we turn some of you into raptors. We even?"
Msg #29: On 5/30/2015 at 4:23:03 PM, Seth Rex replied, saying:
I say go for it.
Msg #30: On 6/8/2015 at 5:56:01 PM, Compy01 replied, saying:
Chase, am I right in remembering you don't believe in evolution?
Msg #31: On 6/8/2015 at 6:29:40 PM, Carnotaur3 replied, saying:
You're remembering an old view point.
Replies: 32
Msg #32: On 6/8/2015 at 7:50:51 PM, Compy01 replied to Msg #31, saying:
What was it that made you doubt the theory, and what was it that changed your mind?
Replies: 34
Msg #33: On 6/8/2015 at 9:01:49 PM, Carnotaur3 replied, saying:
I grew up.
Msg #34: On 6/8/2015 at 9:06:10 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #32, saying:
I don't see any reason to ask someone about something they already changed their mind about.
Msg #35: On 6/8/2015 at 9:15:02 PM, Carnotaur3 replied, saying:
It's okay, he's just curious.
Msg #36: On 6/17/2015 at 3:47:48 PM, Maester replied, saying:
There is nothing unethical about allowing this animal to live. I don't even see anything unethical about modifying the genome to find its evolutionary traits.
The internet is a tricky web of lies and spies and all that lays within the conscious deceit of a nation untold, but not everything of it is as grotesque as any wikipedia article.
An article is not enough to esure that evidence was provided and can be trusted, but to deny it entirely is borderline conspiracy theorist. Ironically, it is told that Conspiracy Theorists believe everything that is spoken to them.
We know Jack Horner has been on the path of this mission and that it should be played in the background, so that much is believable. If you need an image, then that is fine, but who says the image is true? Jurassic Park claims that Tyrannosaurus is blind, thus if they were to resurrect it, millions of people would stand before it as if they were completely safe. It is good to question, but not to incessantly deny.
|
|
