Teabagger Whacktard Christine O’Donnell Warns Against Mice With Human Brains!

[Puppycow]

So, TPM, as far as I know, is a commercial website. Any evidence at all that it's Soros funded? Sounds like bs.

Even if it is, so what?

Soros is some kind of bogeyman?

You know who else thinks Soros is a bogeyman? Iran.

The rightwing wacktards and Iranian theocrats have something in common.

 

[Unabogie]

Even if it is, so what?

Soros is some kind of bogeyman?

You know who else thinks Soros is a bogeyman? Iran.

The rightwing wacktards and Iranian theocrats have something in common.

Good point. But still, such obvious BS deserved to be called out. And hazy's ducking of the question ought to be embarrassing for him.

 

[mhaze]

If this is how loosely you allow "channeling God" to be defined, you've just included 90% or more of the US population......

No.

 

[Snide]

No.

So you'd rather quibble over the 90% figure than address the more pertinent part. Got it.

 

[dudalb]

Forget the crazy, the fact that apparntly she is a perennial candidate who lives between elections on her campaing expenses is going to kill her.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Not exactly. She's actually a vehicle built by mice who operate her from inside. There's a team of thirty mice operating her at all times, with an occasional hamster in as a consultant. So far the project seems a success, but Stage II will be trickier: they're going to attempt to achieve escape velocity and pilot her into space to study near-Earth asteroids.

Sort of a real life Ratatouille?

 

[BenBurch]

Forget the crazy, the fact that apparntly she is a perennial candidate who lives between elections on her campaing expenses is going to kill her.

Hmmm... Suggests a career change to me if the numbers work out.

 

[dudalb]

Like someone said, a Professional Politician who is not reallly good at it....

 

[Biscuit]

Oh, yeah. I ignored the imprecise use of the phrase "cross breeding" by the non scientist.

Neither "cross breeding", hybrid, or cloning/clones really applies to the case of growing human brain in mice whether 1% or 100%. The proper term is chimera if I recall correctly.

No one is growing human brains inside the skulls of mice. Period. Some scientist are growing mice that have brains composed of human brain cells. This does not make them mice with human brains. They have mice brains with human brain cells.

I imagine that this is being done so that human brain cells can be studied without using humans. To imply inter species breeding is completely wrong and shows a profound lack of knowledge on behalf of O'Donnell.

 

[mhaze]

No one is growing human brains inside the skulls of mice. Period. Some scientist are growing mice that have brains composed of human brain cells. This does not make them mice with human brains. They have mice brains with human brain cells.

I imagine that this is being done so that human brain cells can be studied without using humans. To imply inter species breeding is completely wrong and shows a profound lack of knowledge on behalf of O'Donnell.

I don't agree with your interpretation of what O'Donnell meant to imply, except to note that I expect the worst possible interpretation to be taken by agenda driven mice.

However....you are still wrong in what you have said, and that's part of the reason I'm debating this thread. Because it simply doesn't do to jeer at what O'Donnell said, while displaying a similar ignorance on one's own part about the science.

The simple fact is that you don't know what the result would be of growing a mouse with 100% human brain tissue. You have NO idea. This would be a very interesting experiment. The resulting brain could be smooth, or highly convoluted. It could be considerably stupider than a regular mouse with a regular mouse brain. Etc.

And that's really what you are dealing with on an issue like this - high levels of uncertainty until the experiment is done. Some people have ethical concerns about such experiments. If not with mice, then for example they present a fairly good case against 100% human brain tissue being grown in a great ape.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

The simple fact is that you don't know what the result would be of growing a mouse with 100% human brain tissue. You have NO idea. This would be a very interesting experiment. The resulting brain could be smooth, or highly convoluted. It could be considerably stupider than a regular mouse with a regular mouse brain. Etc.

And that's really what you are dealing with on an issue like this - high levels of uncertainty until the experiment is done. Some people have ethical concerns about such experiments. If not with mice, then for example they present a fairly good case against 100% human brain tissue being grown in a great ape.

How does the above come to the defence of O'Donnell? If she said Aliens had been found in Jupiter's clouds, would you defend her based on the high level of uncertainty until we go in there?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I don't agree with your interpretation of what O'Donnell meant to imply, except to note that I expect the worst possible interpretation to be taken by agenda driven mice.

However....you are still wrong in what you have said, and that's part of the reason I'm debating this thread. Because it simply doesn't do to jeer at what O'Donnell said, while displaying a similar ignorance on one's own part about the science.

The simple fact is that you don't know what the result would be of growing a mouse with 100% human brain tissue. You have NO idea. This would be a very interesting experiment. The resulting brain could be smooth, or highly convoluted. It could be considerably stupider than a regular mouse with a regular mouse brain. Etc.

And that's really what you are dealing with on an issue like this - high levels of uncertainty until the experiment is done. Some people have ethical concerns about such experiments. If not with mice, then for example they present a fairly good case against 100% human brain tissue being grown in a great ape.

 

[Biscuit]

I don't agree with your interpretation of what O'Donnell meant to imply, except to note that I expect the worst possible interpretation to be taken by agenda driven mice.

O’DONNELL: They are — they are doing that here in the United States. American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains. So they’re already into this experiment

Interpretation of what she meant to imply! Are you kidding me? No interpretation needed. Read the quote again. It is pretty straight forward. What she said is 100% false.

However....you are still wrong in what you have said, and that's part of the reason I'm debating this thread. Because it simply doesn't do to jeer at what O'Donnell said, while displaying a similar ignorance on one's own part about the science.

The simple fact is that you don't know what the result would be of growing a mouse with 100% human brain tissue. You have NO idea. This would be a very interesting experiment. The resulting brain could be smooth, or highly convoluted. It could be considerably stupider than a regular mouse with a regular mouse brain. Etc.

And that's really what you are dealing with on an issue like this - high levels of uncertainty until the experiment is done. Some people have ethical concerns about such experiments. If not with mice, then for example they present a fairly good case against 100% human brain tissue being grown in a great ape.

Highlighting mine. Now lets look at what O'Donnell said again

O’DONNELL: They are — they are doing that here in the United States. American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains. So they’re already into this experiment

Again what scientists are doing is not cross-breeding. Implanting human cells into mice does not create mice-men. They do not have fully functioning human brains and these experiments are not being done. Other experiments are being and have been done but they do not involve any of the things that you or O'Donnell are talking about.

 

[mhaze]

How does the above come to the defence of O'Donnell? If she said Aliens had been found in Jupiter's clouds, would you defend her based on the high level of uncertainty until we go in there?

The place where she was wrong was in stated that the human brain/mouse chimera had been done or was being done. Unless she knows something that I didn't find on google, it has not been done.

We can agree she was wrong.

Beyond that, criticizers of her comments are equally wrong. I've tried to point out why and how.

High uncertainty is one argument used in discussions of the ethics of biomedical science. It's got a place in a discussion of such things.

 

[Biscuit]

The place where she was wrong was in stated that the human brain/mouse chimera had been done or was being done. Unless she knows something that I didn't find on google, it has not been done.

We can agree she was wrong.

Beyond that, criticizers of her comments are equally wrong. I've tried to point out why and how.

High uncertainty is one argument used in discussions of the ethics of biomedical science. It's got a place in a discussion of such things.

It is not wrong to criticize her. She is unfairly painting genuine and useful scientific research as a frankenstien-esque attempt to create mice-people. She is maligning science in an attempt to garner more support for her cause.

Whether she is doing this out of her own ignorance in science or deliberately is up for debate. She is either ignorant or playing on peoples ignorance for her own gain. Discuss.

 

[Ladewig]

Because it simply doesn't do to jeer at what O'Donnell said, while displaying a similar ignorance on one's own part about the science.

O'Donnell has publicly stated

"Well, creationism, in essence, is believing that the world began as the Bible in Genesis says, that God created the Earth in six days, six 24-hour periods. And there is just as much, if not more, evidence supporting that."

She is claiming that the evidence for a 6-day creation period rivals the evidence for evolution.

So, Mhaze, is that silly? Is it appropriate to call her statement nonsense?

 

[mhaze]

It is not wrong to criticize her. She is unfairly painting genuine and useful scientific research as a frankenstien-esque attempt to create mice-people. She is maligning science in an attempt to garner more support for her cause. Whether she is doing this out of her own ignorance in science or deliberately is up for debate. She is either ignorant or playing on peoples ignorance for her own gain. Discuss.

?? Frankenstein-esque? We're not sticking dead peoples' parts together here. Maligning science? Nope, don't see that.

It's worth noting that the subject of the discussion, the mouse-man quip, was not the central issue in that discussion that O'Donnell kept returning to. That was the ethics of human cloning.

If that isn't addressed, then this is all just quote mining. You see, O'Reilly addressed the issue of growing human organs in animals as a solution or a way to allow harvesting useful replacement parts.

Two different subjects, to which the quip concerning mice with human brains was ancillary and peripheral to the main question.

 

[mhaze]

O'Donnell has publicly stated

She is claiming that the evidence for a 6-day creation period rivals the evidence for evolution.

So, Mhaze, is that silly? Is it appropriate to call her statement nonsense?

Did someone claim the lady wasn't a fundamentalist?

Don't think so.

Is this relevant as to whether she'll vote according to strict constitutionality as her pledge has been?

 

[dudalb]

How the hell do we know what she means by Constitutionality?
And how about the way she is dodging the misuse of campaign funds charge?
She could be caugh red handed sending campaign funds to a Swiss Bank Account and you would defend her.......

 

[AlBell]

O’DONNELL: They are — they are doing that here in the United States. American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains. So they’re already into this experiment

Luckily, 999 normal voters out of 1000 can likely read those words and understand the intent without envisioning mouse/human bestiality.

It's strange that the bestiality aspect is what posters here seem bent to seize on.

No, I lied. It's not at all strange.