Debate on Science

[Avi]

I have been reading the last 3 pages of debate and it seems like there are two main issues. Please correct me if there are other issues:

It seems like the main two issues are:

1) Why are pig valves being used for replacement and not whole hearts ?
2) Can ape organs be used instead of pig organs ?

I found a wiki reference which I think deals with the second part:

Biological valves are valves of animals, like pigs, which undergo several chemical procedures in order to make them suitable for implantation in the human heart. The porcine (or pig) heart is most similar to the human heart, and therefore represents the best anatomical fit for replacement.

Artificial heart valve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interestingly, cow and horse tissue can be transplanted as well.

Another type of biological valve utilizes biological tissue to make leaflets that are sewn into a metal frame. This tissue is typically harvested from the Pericardial Sac of either Bovine (cows) or Equine (horses).

This is what my intuition was telling me, so I did not look for peer review articles to support it, but I am pretty sure I can find them if necessary.

Also, this seems to imply that pig hearts could be used for whole organ transplantion, but perhaps some genetic, tissue and cellular engineering approaches might have to be incorporated.

I have not been able to find much in the literature yet about ape transplantion, which makes me think there are many serious problems, but more research in the area might be interesting.

 

[path_of_one]

Q, pigs are not as similar genetically to humans as our closest relatives (chimps) are.

Humans have 46 chromosomes; chimps have 48. Pigs have 38 chromosomes.

By comparison, horses have 64 and donkeys have 62. While it may be possible for chimps and humans to interbreed to produce infertile offspring (as horses and donkeys can), such research would be an ethical nightmare so I doubt we'll ever know if it is actually possible.

Why use pigs for transplantation rather than chimps? Because it is easier, cheaper, and more ethically sound to farm pigs.

From Genetic modification of pigs for xenotransplantation

While primates, as our closest relatives, would seem the most logical organ donors, they cannot be bred in captivity in large numbers. There is also some concern that the use of primate organs could promote the spread of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). It is thought that HIV evolved from the related simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) that infects non-human primates.
Pigs are regarded as the next-best source of replacement organs because porcine organs are similar in size to their human counterparts. However, there are several technical problems hindering the use of pig organs all of which reflect the fact that the human immune system recognises pig organs as foreign.
Recently, these problems have been addressed by the genetic modification of pigs to alter the antigens displayed on the cell surface. The aim is to fool the human immune system into believing the pig organs are made of genuine human cells.

Humans are, in fact, very similar to chimps genetically.


Enormously helpful summary article from the US government's genome project:
genome.gov | 2005 Release: New Genome Comparison Finds Chimps, Humans Very Similar at DNA Level

 

[Avi]

Q, pigs are not as similar genetically to humans as our closest relatives (chimps) are.

Humans have 46 chromosomes; chimps have 48. Pigs have 38 chromosomes.

By comparison, horses have 64 and donkeys have 62. While it may be possible for chimps and humans to interbreed to produce infertile offspring (as horses and donkeys can), such research would be an ethical nightmare so I doubt we'll ever know if it is actually possible.

The wiki paragraph I cited indicated it was a better "anatomical fit" rather than genetic similarity. It is sort of like replacing a Chevy part with a Buick rather than a Toyota .

Why use pigs for transplantation rather than chimps? Because it is easier, cheaper,

I agree with these two......

and more ethically sound to farm pigs.

.....but Poo, I thought you were an animal lover )) . Now are you saying you like apes more than sweet little piggies (oink, oink).

 

[nativeastral]

'animal farm'? what is the underlying taboo on eating pigs, some waay back knowing about them??

can't see any ethical or economic problem on experimenting with animals; hasn't stopped them in the past and am sure hellish things are happening behind very strong steel doors, in the name of scientific advancement and the good of humankind, of course.

 

[seattlegal]

'animal farm'? what is the underlying taboo on eating pigs, some waay back knowing about them??

Pigs are very smart. They know when they are going to be slaughtered.

Non-modern interpretation: You are eating the pig's terror.
Modern interpretation: The chemical changes associated with it (the pig's terror) will be in its meat that you eat.

 

[citizenzen]

Pigs are very smart. They know when they are going to be slaughtered.

Pigs are very smart, but I'm not sure about the the second part of your sentence.

Growing up on a small farm, we raised a few pigs for meat. We'd raise them in pairs and slaughter them at the same time with a bullet to the brain followed by slitting their throat.

I never saw the second pig react in terror over the bleeding out of the first pig. In fact I recall one time where the second pig went over to slurp up the first pigs blood as it was kicking in its death throes.

But of course that was too small a sample to prove anything.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Pigs are very smart, but I'm not sure about the the second part of your sentence.

Growing up on a small farm, we raised a few pigs for meat. We'd raise them in pairs and slaughter them at the same time with a bullet to the brain followed by slitting their throat.

I never saw the second pig react in terror over the bleeding out of the first pig. In fact I recall one time where the second pig went over to slurp up the first pigs blood as it was kicking in its death throes.

But of course that was too small a sample to prove anything.

I have kept and slaughtered pigs too and concur about how they react. But what pigs do do, and I on 6 out of 7 occasions used only a knife, is scream like hell.... like a child. And it is very unpleasant to hear. So unpleasant that I never managed the 8th.
There are several recorded instances of pigs eating people alive.

 

[path_of_one]

.....but Poo, I thought you were an animal lover )) . Now are you saying you like apes more than sweet little piggies (oink, oink).

Sorry- didn't clarify. I didn't mean in my opinion, but rather what would fly through institutional review boards at research institutes.

I have kept and slaughtered pigs too and concur about how they react. But what pigs do do, and I on 6 out of 7 occasions used only a knife, is scream like hell.... like a child. And it is very unpleasant to hear. So unpleasant that I never managed the 8th.
There are several recorded instances of pigs eating people alive.

Yep- pigs are omnivorous. Wild boar are very dangerous animals.

It's worth saying that horses are an animal that is very sensitive to fear and do know when others are at the slaughterhouse. They become terrified. However, it's worth noting that one can't know if they are afraid of dying or afraid of pain or just afraid because it's a new location and feels dangerous. Horses can also become terrified of plastic bags, balloons, umbrellas, canyons filled with water, trailers... the list goes on and on. Like good prey animals, they are ready to run at a second's notice.

 

[seattlegal]

Pigs are very smart, but I'm not sure about the the second part of your sentence.

Growing up on a small farm, we raised a few pigs for meat. We'd raise them in pairs and slaughter them at the same time with a bullet to the brain followed by slitting their throat.

I never saw the second pig react in terror over the bleeding out of the first pig. In fact I recall one time where the second pig went over to slurp up the first pigs blood as it was kicking in its death throes.

But of course that was too small a sample to prove anything.

It's more experience than I personally have--my info was from talking to people who have slaughtered pigs.

 

[Quahom1]

Q, pigs are not as similar genetically to humans as our closest relatives (chimps) are.

Humans have 46 chromosomes; chimps have 48. Pigs have 38 chromosomes.

By comparison, horses have 64 and donkeys have 62. While it may be possible for chimps and humans to interbreed to produce infertile offspring (as horses and donkeys can), such research would be an ethical nightmare so I doubt we'll ever know if it is actually possible.

Why use pigs for transplantation rather than chimps? Because it is easier, cheaper, and more ethically sound to farm pigs.

From Genetic modification of pigs for xenotransplantation



Humans are, in fact, very similar to chimps genetically.


Enormously helpful summary article from the US government's genome project:
genome.gov | 2005 Release: New Genome Comparison Finds Chimps, Humans Very Similar at DNA Level

Actually there is a three percent variance between the Ape and the Human genetic order (taking into consideration sequence and coding of the genome...might as well be the grand canyon). In reality, there were attempts documented, to mate humans with chimpanzee, in 1925, 1942, over two dozen attempts (Ilya Ivanov, at the behest of Stalin, and Nazi Germany during WWII). They all failed. No pregnancy, no post-zygotic reproduction. No possibility of producing even sterile offspring between Human and its closest (sic) non-human relative.

We simply can not take parts of a Ford, and a Ferrari, and make a Fordari, or a Ferord.

 

[path_of_one]

Not saying we can, but that it is theoretically possible. Apparently, it has been unsuccessful thus far, which is not anymore surprising than it would be if it had been successful. After all, we are closely related but we are not the same species.

What I'm saying is 3% variance (i.e., we share approximately 96% of our genome with chimps according to the genome project) isn't much. It demonstrates common and recent ancestry. Yes, we are different species but we are related to each other rather closely.

The interesting question is how that little bit of variance makes for huge differences between us and chimps. But those huge differences don't mean that we are not genetically related through evolution, but rather that the divergence is behaviorally and physically substantial despite small genetic difference. All of those observations are aligned with evolutionary theory and none refute it. Are there any specifics from the Genome Project article that you have evidence against?

 

[earl]

While I just made the same point on another thread, the point likewise belongs more so to this one. Science in and of itself will not answer many mysteries because, though, science can and does collect data, the interpretation of its meaning not only rests within a particular scientific theory but more deeply at times within the individual's worldview. That's why when however many pages ago when Tao asked what phenomena science was not going to be able to provide all the answers for, I cited human consciousness with NDE's being an example of conscious experiences which as they do not fit the predominant materialist orientation toward the issue of mind-brain are either ignored and dismissed altogether or very weak attempts made to explain the data through the exisiting paradigm. But the paradigm holders may not be aware that they are filtering their reactions and explanations though this more pervasive worldview. Given that many interesting issues while studiable by science still nevertheless call for "leaps of interpretive faith" as to what the data implies about reality, those issues will not be decided by data alone but filtered through the worldview of those perceiving it. earl

 

[Quahom1]

Not saying we can, but that it is theoretically possible. Apparently, it has been unsuccessful thus far, which is not anymore surprising than it would be if it had been successful. After all, we are closely related but we are not the same species.

What I'm saying is 3% variance (i.e., we share approximately 96% of our genome with chimps according to the genome project) isn't much. It demonstrates common and recent ancestry. Yes, we are different species but we are related to each other rather closely.

The interesting question is how that little bit of variance makes for huge differences between us and chimps. But those huge differences don't mean that we are not genetically related through evolution, but rather that the divergence is behaviorally and physically substantial despite small genetic difference. All of those observations are aligned with evolutionary theory and none refute it. Are there any specifics from the Genome Project article that you have evidence against?

None Path. It's just that I'm from Missouri...

I'm kind of a black and white "sot", when it comes to "science". Am I a monkey's nephew? Perhaps, but there had better be a solid branch to that "uncle" in my family tree, before I start treating him as my elder...

And the apparent lack of evidence pertaining to chromosomal polymorphism between people and primates (to date), simply cements my thinking on this issue.

 

[Quahom1]

While I just made the same point on another thread, the point likewise belongs more so to this one. Science in and of itself will not answer many mysteries because, though, science can and does collect data, the interpretation of its meaning not only rests within a particular scientific theory but more deeply at times within the individual's worldview. That's why when however many pages ago when Tao asked what phenomena science was not going to be able to provide all the answers for, I cited human consciousness with NDE's being an example of conscious experiences which as they do not fit the predominant materialist orientation toward the issue of mind-brain are either ignored and dismissed altogether or very weak attempts made to explain the data through the exisiting paradigm. But the paradigm holders may not be aware that they are filtering their reactions and explanations though this more pervasive worldview. Given that many interesting issues while studiable by science still nevertheless call for "leaps of interpretive faith" as to what the data implies about reality, those issues will not be decided by data alone but filtered through the worldview of those pereceiving it. earl

THANKYOU!!!

There is a God, and he is listening...

 

[Quahom1]

I have been reading the last 3 pages of debate and it seems like there are two main issues. Please correct me if there are other issues:

It seems like the main two issues are:

1) Why are pig valves being used for replacement and not whole hearts ?
2) Can ape organs be used instead of pig organs ?

I found a wiki reference which I think deals with the second part:



Interestingly, cow and horse tissue can be transplanted as well.


This is what my intuition was telling me, so I did not look for peer review articles to support it, but I am pretty sure I can find them if necessary.

Also, this seems to imply that pig hearts could be used for whole organ transplantion, but perhaps some genetic, tissue and cellular engineering approaches might have to be incorporated.

I have not been able to find much in the literature yet about ape transplantion, which makes me think there are many serious problems, but more research in the area might be interesting.

I suppose there is the possibility of stripping the organics from a vessel such as a heart (of any like size animal's heart close to that of the human heart), and refilling the cellular structure left behind with "human" cells, to in effect, "grow" a new human heart. It's been done with bladders, stomachs, and the like. But that would be time consuming and cost prohibitive.

What gets me is "why" it would be easier to harvest porcine parts for human transplant (and cheaper), than primate parts...if we are so close in design...? Less chromosone pairs to deal with? Then why can a horse and donkey produce offspring naturally, despite their genetic differences (being wider apart than man and ape's)? Something is missing here...

 

[Quahom1]

As many of you have pointed out, many animals can and do successfuly interbreed with similar animals, but not the same, regardless of the variance of their respective genetics. Why can't humans interbreed with anything other than humans, despite the closest tie between us and primates?

What is so special or different about us, that precludes our mating and producing hybrids? Have we developed a gene that is the equivelent of ninoxyl, save for other human gametes/zygotes? If so, why?

 

[citizenzen]

I'm kind of a black and white "sot", when it comes to "science".

Is the black and white "sot" capable of admitting he was mistaken in his assertion that man's closest genetic relative is the pig?

Come on big boy... you can do it.

 

[Quahom1]

Is the black and white "sot" capable of admitting he was mistaken in his assertion that man's closest genetic relative is the pig?

Come on big boy... you can do it.

Yep, mucked up on that one big time...pigs are second closest...

 

[citizenzen]

Yep, mucked up on that one big time...pigs are second closest...

Sorry to have to drag it out of you. It was the only way to get you to admit it.

I've always found that admitting my errors to be one of the greatest feelings one can experience... so freeing.

One of my personal weaknesses? Not being able to let an argument go, of course. I'm working on that one too.

 

[path_of_one]

Q, I'm thinking it's cheaper and easier to harvest pig parts because they reproduce a lot faster than chimps, are easier to keep and farm, are easier to manage under animal rights requirements (i.e., they don't have as many social needs as chimps), hit maturity faster than chimps, and are easier to get past ethical review boards.

Chimps take a long time to reach maturity (years) and, like us, do not have litters as a rule. Which means you simply can't have a mechanization of this sort of work the way you can with pigs, who reproduce rapidly in litters and reach maturity quickly.