World's first chimeric monkeys are born

Jan 05, 2012
Roku. Image: OHSU

Researchers have produced the world's first chimeric monkeys. The bodies of these monkeys, which are normal and healthy, are composed of a mixture of cells representing as many as six distinct genomes. The advance holds great potential for future research as chimeric animals had been largely restricted to mice, the researchers say. The report, published online ahead of the release of the January 20th issue of Cell, also suggests there may be limits to the use of cultured embryonic stem cells.

The chimeric were born after the researchers essentially glued cells from separate embryos together and successfully implanted these mixed embryos into mothers. The key was mixing cells from very early when each individual embryonic cell is totipotent, capable of giving rise to a whole animal as well as the placenta and other life-sustaining tissues. (This is in contrast to pluripotent , which can differentiate into any tissue type in the body, but not extra-embryonic tissues or entire organisms.)

"The cells never fuse, but they stay together and work together to form tissues and organs," said Shoukhrat Mitalipov of the Oregon National Primate Research Center at Oregon Health & Science University. "The possibilities for science are enormous."

Roku & Hex. Image: OHSU

Initial efforts by Mitalipov's team to produce living monkey chimeras by introducing cultured embryonic stem cells into monkey embryos -- a well-established means to produce chimeric mice -- failed. Chimeric mice have been extremely important to biomedical research by enabling the production of transgenic "knock-out" mice carrying deletions of targeted genes, Mitalipov explained.

Mitalipov says it appears that primate embryos prevent cultured embryonic stem cells from becoming integrated as they do in mice. Their study also suggests that cultured primate and human embryonic stem cells, some of which have been maintained in lab dishes for as long as two decades, may not be as potent as those found inside a living embryo.

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.
OHSU's Dr. Shoukhrat Mitalipov explains his research

"We need to go back to basics," Mitalipov said. "We need to study not just cultured embryonic stem cells but also stem cells in embryos. It's too soon to close the chapter on these cells." For instance, he added, cultured are now considered the "gold standard" for comparisons to induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells made by treating adult cells with relatively simple cocktails.

"We cannot model everything in the mouse," Mitalipov continued. "If we want to move stem cell therapies from the lab to clinics and from the mouse to humans, we need to understand what these primate cells can and can't do. We need to study them in humans, including human embryos." He emphasized, however, that there is no practical use or intention for anyone to produce human chimeras.

Explore further: How sweet it is: New tool for characterizing plant sugar transporters

More information: Tachibana et al.: “Totipotent but not pluripotent primate embryonic cells contribute to chimeras.” DOI:10.1016/j.cell.2011.12.007

Abstract
Totipotent cells in early embryos are progenitors of all stem cells and are capable of developing into a whole organism, including extraembryonic tissues such as placenta. Pluripotent cells in the inner cell mass (ICM) are the descendants of totipotent cells and can differentiate into any cell type of a body except extraembryonic tissues. The ability to contribute to chimeric animals upon reintroduction into host embryos is the key feature of murine totipotent and pluripotent cells. Here, we demonstrate that rhesus monkey embryonic stem cells (ESCs) and isolated ICMs fail to incorporate into host embryos and develop into chimeras. However, chimeric offspring were produced following aggregation of totipotent cells of the four-cell embryos. These results provide insights into the species-specific nature of primate embryos and suggest that a chimera assay using pluripotent cells may not be feasible.

Related Stories

Study: Skin cells turned into stem cells

Aug 22, 2005

The controversy over embryonic stem cell research may become moot with a procedure that turns skin cells into what appear to be embryonic stem cells.

Recommended for you

The microbes make the sake brewery

Jul 24, 2014

A sake brewery has its own microbial terroir, meaning the microbial populations found on surfaces in the facility resemble those found in the product, creating the final flavor according to research published ahead of print ...

User comments : 92

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

dogbert
1.4 / 5 (28) Jan 05, 2012
If we want to move stem cell therapies from the lab to clinics and from the mouse to humans, we need to understand what these primate cells can and can't do. We need to study them in humans, including human embryos." He emphasized, however, that there is no practical use or intention for anyone to produce human cbimeras.


In other words, lets just do these things because we can. There is no practical use.

Insane practices.
Xbw
1.4 / 5 (17) Jan 05, 2012
If we want to move stem cell therapies from the lab to clinics and from the mouse to humans, we need to understand what these primate cells can and can't do. We need to study them in humans, including human embryos." He emphasized, however, that there is no practical use or intention for anyone to produce human cbimeras.


In other words, lets just do these things because we can. There is no practical use.

Insane practices.

Yeah and I'll bet they are a huge fan of "Human Centipede" too!
kaasinees
1.5 / 5 (15) Jan 05, 2012
Have to agree with dogbert, how healthy or domesticated mice? ;] half dies of cancer.
that_guy
4.8 / 5 (24) Jan 05, 2012
no practical use

Stop the presses. No research should continue that works beyond dogbert's limits of imagination.

I don't *think* that this research lends itself directly to an exact transfer of technology to the real world, but the understanding gained from it and the multiple disciplines it can enhance more than justify the research.

1. We learn better how stem cells work.
2. We gain knowledge that is useful regarding transplants. Directly. A six genome monkey shows, in primates, how an immune system deals with body cells that have foreign DNA/Protien.
3. This experiment shows or expands the limits of what we can and cant do with stem cells, or body cells with differring genomes, as well as finding new ways to tackle those issues. Stem cell therapies (Both adult stem cells and embryonic) hold a lot of potential and even a few successful treatments. Knowing where we can take them is definitely important.
RitchieGuy
1 / 5 (17) Jan 05, 2012
from the article:
""we need to understand what these primate cells can and can't do. We need to study them in humans, including human embryos." He emphasized, however, that there is no practical use or intention for anyone to produce human chimeras.""

Well, why not human chimeras also, while they're at it. If you're going to play Dr. Frankenstein with mice and monkeys anyway, why not go all the way. What can possibly go wrong? It's not like religion has anything to do with it, does it? Ethics? This is science, so anything is ethical.
:)
Pressure2
1.4 / 5 (18) Jan 05, 2012
There are natually born human chimeras, this research could be of benefit to them.

By the way, I wonder how many souls a natually born human chimera has?
dogbert
1.5 / 5 (17) Jan 05, 2012
By the way, I wonder how many souls a natually born human chimera has?


Why would you expect a human chimera to have more than one life?
Tangent2
3.3 / 5 (9) Jan 05, 2012

Well, why not human chimeras also, while they're at it. If you're going to play Dr. Frankenstein with mice and monkeys anyway, why not go all the way. What can possibly go wrong? It's not like religion has anything to do with it, does it? Ethics? This is science, so anything is ethical.
:)


There is a fine line between Religion and Morality, do not confuse the two.
dogbert
1.7 / 5 (17) Jan 05, 2012
There is a fine line between Religion and Morality, do not confuse the two.


Actually, religion and morality are separate concepts. However, absent a moral standard or standard setter, morality has little meaning. That is, secular morality is a highly variable and disposable quantity.
Isaacsname
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 05, 2012
I'd like to take this opportunity to say something before this train catches fire and plunges over a washed-out bridge.

" Their study also suggests that cultured primate and human embryonic stem cells, some of which have been maintained in lab dishes for as long as two decades. "

That is very cool, imo. I did not know that was possible. Pasnpermia anybody ?

" He emphasized, however, that there is no practical use or intention for anyone to produce human chimeras. "

Ludicrous.

Should we start taking bets when the first human chimera will be born ?

I'm going to say within 5 years.

Pressure2
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 05, 2012
By the way, I wonder how many souls a natually born human chimera has?


Why would you expect a human chimera to have more than one life?

Well for those who believe life begins at fertilization I would assume they also believe each fertilized egg has a soul. Since a chimera is the combining of two or more fertilized eggs very shortly after fertilization it would have more than one soul wouldn't it?. So how many souls would a human chimera have?
Pressure2
5 / 5 (5) Jan 05, 2012
Isaacsname, human chimeras are already here. There are natually born human chimeras. They have been around since who knows when.
dogbert
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 05, 2012
Pressure2,
Since a chimera is the combining of two or more fertilized eggs very shortly after fertilization it would have more than one soul wouldn't it?. So how many souls would a human chimera have?


The word soul just means life. A living creature has one life. A creature which dies loses its one life. Nothing difficult with that concept.
Tausch
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 05, 2012
All humans are chimeras. To test all 78 organs to see if all cells stemming from each and every organ stem from a single genome spells the end of forensic DNA. Such a hypothesis must be suppressed at all cost. And will be.
RitchieGuy
1.1 / 5 (8) Jan 05, 2012
Wait a minute. . .wasn't there a case of 2 lesbians who wanted to have a baby together and had the egg from one lesbian joined with the egg of the other one after something had been removed from one egg? I am almost sure that happened. Could the resulting child be considered a human chimera?
Pressure2
2 / 5 (8) Jan 05, 2012
Pressure2,
Since a chimera is the combining of two or more fertilized eggs very shortly after fertilization it would have more than one soul wouldn't it?. So how many souls would a human chimera have?


The word soul just means life. A living creature has one life. A creature which dies loses its one life. Nothing difficult with that concept.

There certainly is if you believe life begins at conception.
You have two souls combining into one, which one gets a free pass into heaven?
Telekinetic
3.4 / 5 (10) Jan 05, 2012
This work seems like a precursor to growing organs for organ replacement that won't be rejected by the recipient, whose own stem cells would no longer be necessary. Someday you'll be able to shop for a new kidney at Walmart.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.6 / 5 (17) Jan 05, 2012
Wait a minute. . .wasn't there a case of 2 lesbians who wanted to have a baby together and had the egg from one lesbian joined with the egg of the other one after something had been removed from one egg? I am almost sure that happened. Could the resulting child be considered a human chimera?
Uh why dont you try GOOGLE and see if you can find something worth contributing? Or is copy/paste too complicated for you?
dogbert
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 05, 2012
Pressure2,
There certainly is if you believe life begins at conception.
You have two souls combining into one, which one gets a free pass into heaven?


Strange religion you have there. I suppose you will need to query your religious leader or your religious texts to address your religious concern. I am not familiar with any religion which considers a living human to be multiple living humans. Hope you find your answers.
Pressure2
2.8 / 5 (8) Jan 05, 2012
Pressure2,
There certainly is if you believe life begins at conception.
You have two souls combining into one, which one gets a free pass into heaven?

Strange religion you have there. I suppose you will need to query your religious leader or your religious texts to address your religious concern. I am not familiar with any religion which considers a living human to be multiple living humans. Hope you find your answers.

My beliefs have NO problems with this dilemna, what about yours? I do not believe human life begins at conception.
And if you do believe human life begins at conception I would like to hear your answer, who lives who dies, or are there two souls in one being.

RitchieGuy
1.5 / 5 (23) Jan 05, 2012
I Googled human chimera and found this, amongst others:

http://www.katewe...era.html

interesting stuff
dogbert
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 05, 2012
My beliefs have NO problems with this dilemna, what about yours? I do not believe human life begins at conception.


Then perhaps you should stop arguing about something you don't believe in?

RitchieGuy
1 / 5 (7) Jan 05, 2012
I believe that life begins at conception, but where a soul comes in, the jury is still out. There may be a 50 - 50 chance of the existence of a soul. . . .but no scientific evidence for it. Maybe the technology just hasn't been invented yet to detect it?
dogbert
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 05, 2012
RitchieGue,
The problem which Pressure2 poses and which you comment on as well doesn't exist. The so called dilemma which Pressure2 is arguing about only exists if you confuse the terms "soul" and "spirit".

A human being is simply a human being -- a single living soul. The composition of a living human being is billions of cells, many of which are not even human.

Pressure2
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 05, 2012
Okay dogbert, do you believe a human spirt begins at the moment of conception? If so, when two fertilized eggs (spirits) merge into one being what happens to one of the two "spirits"?
dogbert
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 05, 2012
Pressure2,
Okay dogbert, do you believe a human spirt begins at the moment of conception? If so, when two fertilized eggs (spirits) merge into one being what happens to one of the two "spirits"?


As I said, the so called dilemma you are trying to create does not exist. You yourself say it is not a problem to you. Do you know anyone who is concerned about this non-existent problem? Why do you care about a spirit you do not believe exists?

I will suggest again that if you are truly concerned about these non-existent issues you pose, that you bring them to your pastor, read your holy texts or pray to your god to enlighten you. If you are not religious, you have nothing to worry about and should stop worrying about it.
RitchieGuy
1 / 5 (6) Jan 05, 2012
I was referring to the soul spoken of in the Jewish bible (old and new testaments). Spirit can mean something more philosophical, rather different than an "immortal" soul.
dogbert
1.7 / 5 (7) Jan 05, 2012
RitchieGuy,
I was referring to the soul spoken of in the Jewish texts and in the Christian New Testament. Soul means simply life.

There is confusion with the term soul which refers to the corporal body [somatic] and spirit which is not corporal.
Pressure2
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 05, 2012
Dogbert: It come down to a simple idea you do NOT seem to want to deal with. If you believe it is a human being at the moment of conception you end up with two souls (spirits) in one human being. It is not a problem with me but what about you?

You are avoiding any meaningful response. So I have to conclude you do not have one.

dogbert
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 05, 2012
Pressure2,
You are avoiding any meaningful response. So I have to conclude you do not have one.


I have given you a meaningful response. You cling to your own self constructed dilemma.

Human life does begin with the combination of genetic material resulting in a viable embryo. The composition of that embryo is not germane to the discussion. Multiple zygotes do, rarely, combine so that the embryo contains diverse genetic material.

As to your question about spirit, answer it yourself. Please enumerate your beliefs on these matters [instead of creating false dilemmas].

What is a spirit, when is it created (if it is created), what relation does a spirit have with a body, when does that relationship form and what informs you of this relationship? Answer that before you accuse me of refusing to offer a meaningful response.

You are just blowing smoke.
signoftimes
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 05, 2012
I just have to say, from first hand experience, government technology is typically about 20 years ahead of publicly known technology. While I understand the benefits of research and technology in this field, part of it is always going to just scare the hell out of me. I have seen research that states that it is necessary to research virulent strains to know how to defend against them. It will never sit well with me.
C_elegans
5 / 5 (4) Jan 06, 2012
Just trying to help people understand the use of chimeras.
One imaginable use of this technology would be to test the effects of a certain allele in conjunction with the wild type gene. This allows you to ask specific questions of cell signaling. For example, you have one monkey that gets really sick after an infection, and others only get mildly sick, but then get cancer. One allele (A) may cause the cells to die. Another (B) may cause the cell to live, but eventually turn cancerous. You could now grow the monkey up, infect it, and compare the response to the virus between tissues of the same monkey. A hypothetical result would be that cancers always form in (B) monkeys, never form in (A) monkeys, and also do not form in (AB) chimeric monkeys. This could suggest that the (B) form of the allele suppresses (A) type cancers in trans.
Pkunk_
1 / 5 (2) Jan 06, 2012
Hmm.. so far everything seems to be going along the "Planet of the Apes" predictions. The only thing left now is for some Islamic madmen to get hold of megaton scale Nukes (Already in progress thanks to the Chinese help).
Pressure2
2.2 / 5 (5) Jan 06, 2012
Thanks Dogbert, now you gave a meaningful response. So you believe human life begins a conception, now to the question do you believe everybody else must believe as you do or does a woman have the right to chose? Some of us believe there is a difference between human life and a human being. One is and individual being the other can and is sometimes part of another human being.
Pressure2
2 / 5 (5) Jan 06, 2012
But Dogbert, you still have not answered my first question, since you believe human life (being) begins at conception how many souls (spirits) does a human chimera have?
And if your answer is one, what happens to the other(s)?
Which one(s) get a free pass in to heaven?
And if there is a free pass, is this fair to the one left behind?


dogbert
1.7 / 5 (7) Jan 06, 2012
Pressure2,
You are the one avoiding meaningful responses. What is your position and belief regarding a human spirit?

You are just blowing smoke. Not once have you clearly stated your beliefs nor have you attempted to support your position in any way. You only seek to argue for the sake of arguing.

Why don't you make a meaningful response?
What is a spirit, when is it created (if it is created), what relation does a spirit have with a body, when does that relationship form and what informs you of this relationship? Answer that before you accuse me of refusing to offer a meaningful response.
rnhA
5 / 5 (4) Jan 06, 2012
Attempting to focus on the science is incredibly difficult with such cute monkeys spread throughout the article.
Cynical1
3.3 / 5 (8) Jan 06, 2012
technically speaking... doesn't the combo of sperm and egg coming together constitute a "chimera"? After all, you are combining two distinct genomes into one being.
It appears evolution beat us to the punch again - with a much more efficient system.
And - life does begin at conception. I know/felt the exact moment my daughter was conceived, 29 some years ago(and I'm a guy - go figure). No religion or pastor or moral advisor involved - just some good ol' Sunday mornin' sex...:-)
Pressure2
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 06, 2012
You are just blowing smoke. Not once have you clearly stated your beliefs nor have you attempted to support your position in any way. You only seek to argue for the sake of arguing.

Why don't you make a meaningful response?
What is a spirit, when is it created (if it is created), what relation does a spirit have with a body, when does that relationship form and what informs you of this relationship? Answer that before you accuse me of refusing to offer a meaningful response.

You are accusing me of the exact same thing you are doing, not once have you answered my previous questions.

I will state mine more clearly for you again. A fertilized human embryo has NO spirit and NO soul. Chemeras create no problem for me but they apparently do for you Dogbert because you cannot answer a few simple question. And if you cannot answer those few questions you have NO business deciding how others answer them. It is an individual's choice.
Deathclock
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 06, 2012
There are natually born human chimeras, this research could be of benefit to them.

By the way, I wonder how many souls a natually born human chimera has?


The same number as any other human, zero.
Deathclock
4 / 5 (8) Jan 06, 2012
There is a fine line between Religion and Morality, do not confuse the two.


Actually, religion and morality are separate concepts. However, absent a moral standard or standard setter, morality has little meaning. That is, secular morality is a highly variable and disposable quantity.


Considering your "morality setter" doesn't exist it would seem you and I are in the same boat. Morality is an emergent phenomenon that originates from empathy, there is no reason to think it must be fixed to an absolute standard to have meaning.
spaceagesoup
4.3 / 5 (3) Jan 06, 2012
speaking of souls, and free passes....

what about in cases of identical twins. in the framework of a soul coming into existence at conception, would the preposition then be that this is one soul split in two? nonsense.

if we consider 'life' as the soul, then chimeras, twins and standard humans are are imbued with a soul.

here's an idea - a human child is conceived into a world and has no motivated communication with its mother during gestation, and meets no other humans, primates, animals of any sort... what would it have to say about itself? would it be capable of self-reflection? is it purely an automaton, guided by external stimuli?

the good thing about a variable morality is that it can keep pace with a changing world. unfortunately it requires that all of us about more than just ourselves.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (17) Jan 06, 2012
Actually, religion and morality are separate concepts. However, absent a moral standard or standard setter, morality has little meaning. That is, secular morality is a highly variable and disposable quantity.
Ha! Right now boko haram and the lords resistance army et al are using religionist morality to justify murdering thousands. Religions commandeered tribal law long ago so that it could be applied consistently and selectively against friend or foe.

Read your books. What is good for you and bad for your enemies - this is your morality. This is what gave Israel the promised land and mohammud Mecca.

The fallacy of religious morality? At the very top of every list of dos and donts is the command to love the tribal god. If you don't, believers are obliged to break every other rule in dealing with YOU. You become the enemy by your rejection of the source of goodness.

No, today society agrees on what is moral and what isn't and writes laws for this. This makes much more sense.
Alburton
5 / 5 (3) Jan 06, 2012
The fertilization of an egg by a sperm creates one genome from two separate chromosomes:XX or XY,the egg always providing X.A human chimera would be the joining of multiple cells from different embryos,if I have understood well.
What an interesting idea for understanding the inner organization biological systems!
I am an ignorant in biology,but I believe I know this:the embryo starts from one cell,multiplying by two at every early step,and at one of those steps (8cells?,32cells?)each stemcell changes into one specialised kind of cell(nervous cell,for example),and is the origin of its whole system (the nervous system in this case).
If you choose the right moment,you could have one body with a nervous system with a genome A in every nucleus,a skeleton with genome B,muscles with a genome C ,etc.
Will genomes "contaminate" each other over time creating one whole new genome?Which functions will stop working and why?
How universal are the "protein messages" in DNA systems?
Truly amazing
Alburton
3 / 5 (2) Jan 06, 2012
By the way,enjoying phylosophical thinking is one of the most pure human activities one can undergo.On the other hand,if such thinking is done between two or more by conversing please be polite and center on the ideas at hand.No fundamentalism is respectable,and every presented idea must be explained if asked for.Please be polite and dont get too aggresive if the concepts you try to express trascend your intelect.
On the soul subject,I believe someone with multiple personalities is a more interesting case than a chimera =)
RitchieGuy
1.7 / 5 (7) Jan 06, 2012
technically speaking... doesn't the combo of sperm and egg coming together constitute a "chimera"? After all, you are combining two distinct genomes into one being.
It appears evolution beat us to the punch again - with a much more efficient system.
And - life does begin at conception. I know/felt the exact moment my daughter was conceived, 29 some years ago(and I'm a guy - go figure). No religion or pastor or moral advisor involved - just some good ol' Sunday mornin' sex...:-)


@Cynical1. . .You do have a point. The sperm and egg joining together is the basis for natural and ancient chimera formation as 2 cells from 2 different organisms with their respective differences come together to form yet a third organism.

Here is an article on the monkey chimerae from a different perspective:
http://www.dailym...sts.html

kochevnik
5 / 5 (3) Jan 06, 2012
@dogbert Actually, religion and morality are separate concepts. However, absent a moral standard or standard setter, morality has little meaning. That is, secular morality is a highly variable and disposable quantity.
Religion and morality are the same. The authority for morality stems for your invisible sky fairy. That's why rationals employ ethics based instead upon REASON.

@dogbert Human life does begin with the combination of genetic material resulting in a viable embryo. The composition of that embryo is not germane to the discussion.
So the life of say, a fish, is every bit as important as that of a human? Any organism with some human DNA is fully human?
that_guy
5 / 5 (1) Jan 06, 2012
@ritchie - Regarding the lesbian couple, that is not a chimera. I'm not privy on the exact details at the moment, but either it was the genetic material of one egg inserted into the other. (So one egg has one mother's dna, and another mother's RNA) or some other similar amalgamation. Since all the cells in the child's body contain the same set of genetic material, it is not a chimera.
that_guy
5 / 5 (4) Jan 06, 2012
@dogbert and pressure:

Pressure has a point, and let me re-explain in a way that you can't feint ignorance or stupidity. He's not specifically talking about your beliefs, but the religious beliefs in general.

1. Many evangelicals, catholics, and fundamentalists believe that life starts at conception. They believe that miscarried babies go to heaven, for example. This is also why they wish to outlaw abortion and some types of birth control.
2. If a fertilized egg can go to heaven, then it must have a soul.
3. If there are two seperate fertilized eggs, then it follows that they both can go to heaven or hell independantly of each other.

Conjoined twins can be considered a type of chimera, or at least similer in concept. Consider a body with two fully formed heads. Each 'twin' has a different personality and independent religious fate.

To say any different for a chimera would be to provide an exception that doesn't follow the rest of the logic.
RitchieGuy
1.4 / 5 (21) Jan 06, 2012
There is a fine line between Religion and Morality, do not confuse the two.


Actually, religion and morality are separate concepts. However, absent a moral standard or standard setter, morality has little meaning. That is, secular morality is a highly variable and disposable quantity.


dogbert. . .religion can lack morality, as in certain religions, a perceived "morality" within a doctrine of mercy killing or human sacrifice, or genocide ordered by a deity. Mercy killing is not a religion in itself, but is a belief system in individuals who may practice it as a sacred act.
Secular morality also depends on the individual's beliefs. Lack of religious belief does not necessarily mean lack of morality also. Many atheists and agnostics are highly moral in their beliefs and practices. The founding fathers were highly moral whether or not they were religious. Jim Jones and his followers believed in their religion and died for it. They drank the Koolaid in more ways than one.
that_guy
5 / 5 (5) Jan 06, 2012
I'm visualizing a man in heaven who has only one arm, a chest and a head. No legs or stomach. Why? because his lower half was a chimeric twin who went to hell.

Another guy at the pearly gates (Or second coming, depending on your view) Arguing with St Peter (or god) - "I didn't commit that sin. I'm a chimera. This is it's hand. Also, when I crapped on the neighbor's porch, my butt is also chimeric."
RitchieGuy
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 06, 2012
@ritchie - Regarding the lesbian couple, that is not a chimera. I'm not privy on the exact details at the moment, but either it was the genetic material of one egg inserted into the other. (So one egg has one mother's dna, and another mother's RNA) or some other similar amalgamation. Since all the cells in the child's body contain the same set of genetic material, it is not a chimera.


that_guy. . .I looked it up and both eggs of the 2 lezzies were deprived of their natural Y chromosomes, then joined together as only 2 X chromosomes. With that, the only sex of their child could be female since the child was totally lacking the Y. They can never have sons, even if they wanted them, unless they are impregnated with male sperm. Unnatural to the extreme.
RitchieGuy
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 06, 2012
There may be a problem with an artificially made human chimera, religious-wise, because as has been said already, how many souls would the body contain. I would say that there should be only 1 dominant soul that would dwell in the mind, IF there were such a thing as a soul. The body itself from the neck down is ruled by the mind and its neurons, since a leg or arm can be removed and the rest of the body can still survive. Otherwise, you could also say that if the body undergoes a heart or liver transplant, does it also attain another soul from the donor?
that_guy
4 / 5 (2) Jan 06, 2012
Otherwise, you could also say that if the body undergoes a heart or liver transplant, does it also attain another soul from the donor?

There's a special section of heaven with heartless men. Not that they're bad people, but their hearts are still down on earth doing good deeds. Hahaha.

To update my comment on the lesbian couple with a kid (based on the info you provided) - The genetic material was joined together in a similar way to a sperm and egg - half of it from one and half from the other. Since all the cells in the new child have the same single complete set of genes, it is not a chimera.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 06, 2012
There's a special section of heaven with heartless men. Not that they're bad people, but their hearts are still down on earth doing good deeds. Hahaha.
Naw I think purgatory has been converted into a clinic where people can wait until all their organs show up. There are a lot of worn out livers and kidneys waiting there also.
There may be a problem with an artificially made human chimera, religious-wise, because as has been said already, how many souls would the body contain. I would say that there should be only 1 dominant soul that would dwell in the mind, IF there were such a thing as a soul. The body itself from the neck down is ruled by the mind and its neurons, since a leg or arm can be removed and the rest of the body can still survive. Otherwise, you could also say that if the body undergoes a heart or liver transplant, does it also attain another soul from the donor?
Test your IQ! How many brainless things can YOU count in the previous paragraph?
RitchieGuy
1 / 5 (3) Jan 06, 2012
@that_guy. . . .it's not a chimera but it still lacks the normal Y chromosomes
FrankHerbert
Jan 06, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
dogbert
1 / 5 (5) Jan 07, 2012
Pressure2,
I will state mine more clearly for you again. A fertilized human embryo has NO spirit and NO soul. Chemeras create no problem for me but they apparently do for you Dogbert


As I pointed out repeatedly, you are just stirring up trouble. You pretended to be concerned about the number of spirits a human chimera had when you had no concern about that at all.

You are the only person on this discussion -- and I wager the only person on the planet -- who has ever worried about the number of spirits a chimera has.

And no, I am not concerned about that.

You continue to reveal yourself as an atheist activist who tries to create conflict but are too inept to actually convince anyone of anything.

Now, if you really want to argue that an embryo has no life, have at it. It will doubtless be humorous to watch you try.
FrankHerbert
2.5 / 5 (13) Jan 07, 2012
And once again, dogbert does not answer the question.

It really is very simple.

CREATIONISTS (dogbert) believe:

1) Human life begins at conception.
2) Humans have souls/spirits (he tried to conflate the two definitions, i.e. say one isn't the other and bounce back and forth between the two.)
3) A chimera involves the fusing of two separate embryos i.e. two separate lives with two separate souls/spirits.

So the question remains, does a chimera have more than one soul/spirit? He won't answer the question because it makes his religion look silly.
dogbert
1 / 5 (6) Jan 07, 2012
Frankie,
And once again, dogbert does not answer the question.

The question was "Are you concerned about the number of spirits a chimera has?"

My answer was:
And no, I am not concerned about that.


And you, sir, should try to find something to do except lie about me.
FrankHerbert
2.4 / 5 (13) Jan 07, 2012
Then answer my question dogbert posed above which you conveniently ignored. You're very good at ignoring questions that make your religion look silly.

So the question remains, does a chimera have more than one soul/spirit? He won't answer the question because it makes his religion look silly.

Just to reiterate for anyone just joining:

Creationists believe a soul is instilled in a human at the moment of conception. For a chimera there is MORE THAN ONE moment of conception with the embryos already alive and with their own souls.

What happens when they fuse? Does the one soul disappear? Does the one soul go to heaven? Does the one soul go to hell, purgatory, what?

Or does the final human contain both souls?

So the question remains, does a chimera have more than one soul/spirit? He won't answer the question because it makes his religion look silly.
dogbert
1 / 5 (8) Jan 07, 2012
Frankie,
So you take up Pressure2's foolishness?

Why don't you answer your own question?

You also confuse "soul" and "spirit". Soul just means life.

Yes, a living embryo is living.

No human being knows when a human being receives its non-dying part (spirit). Since God has not stated it, no human being knows the answer. You don't either. So why not stop asking foolish questions you can't answer?

I don't worry about such things. Why do you?
Cube
5 / 5 (8) Jan 07, 2012
wait, when did i click the link to ReligOrg?
komone
5 / 5 (1) Jan 07, 2012
I'm confused -- what exactly are these things people are talking about: "spirit" and "soul"? I mean - exactly what.
RitchieGuy
1 / 5 (5) Jan 07, 2012
So does every female you retard.


So does every NORMAL female with both a mother and a father you retard
Shifty0x88
5 / 5 (3) Jan 08, 2012
wait, when did i click the link to ReligOrg?


HAHAHA, I was thinking the same thing. This article's discussion went from chimera monkeys to religion within 5 or 6 comments...

I'm confused -- what exactly are these things people are talking about: "spirit" and "soul"? I mean - exactly what.


Please komone, please don't egg them on, that's enough religion class for everyone.
DemoniWaari
5 / 5 (3) Jan 08, 2012
Oh man, WHY does every comment section eventually go to religion? And most importantly couple guys arguing about it while the rest just go "duh, who cares?". Damnit...

Anyway, interesting article, need to google some more info about this.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.8 / 5 (16) Jan 08, 2012
Yes, a living embryo is living.
Well for that matter so is a tumor. So is a wart. So is a dandelion. None of them have souls and neither do we.

This does not make these things all equal in value. But the declaration only makes you THINK that this is what us antireligionists believe.

We are indeed soulless, just like you.
HAHAHA, I was thinking the same thing. This article's discussion went from chimera monkeys to religion within 5 or 6 comments...
Godlovers will invariably come here looking for the words 'scientists dont yet know' so they can claim that their god is responsible for everything. Their affrontery cannot go unchallenged. They provide valuable opportunities to dismantle their superstitions and so they are actually performing a valuable service.

'One brick at a time shall your glorious temple be brought down.'
The Book of Otto 2:22
dogbert
1.2 / 5 (6) Jan 08, 2012
Otto,
Godlovers will invariably come here looking for the words 'scientists dont yet know'

Pressure2 started the religion discussion and FrandHerbert chimed in. Neither of those are "Godlovers". You are also continuing the religious discussion and you are not a "Godlover".

None of you arguing about the number of spirits a chimera has are religious but you do continually use this forum to further your anti-religion agenda.

And no one who is religious has raised any issue with chimeric spirits.

So look to yourself for the continual injection of religion into physorg articles which are not about religious issues.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.7 / 5 (14) Jan 08, 2012
Pressure2 started the religion discussion
Kevin must be sick or maybe hes still up at the north pole?
and FrandHerbert chimed in. Neither of those are "Godlovers". You are also continuing the religious discussion and you are not a "Godlover".
That would be correct.
None of you arguing about the number of spirits a chimera has are religious
A 'spirit' or 'soul' is nothing BUT a religious concept (lie)
but you do continually use this forum to further your anti-religion agenda.

And no one who is religious has raised any issue with chimeric spirits.

So look to yourself for the continual injection of religion into physorg articles which are not about religious issues.
Im very passionate. Religions, including YOURS, are the greatest single threat to humanity today and Ive got to do SOMETHING, yes?

And - be honest now, god is (not) watching - it is you chaps who nearly always start these things. Correct?
dogbert
1 / 5 (6) Jan 08, 2012
And - be honest now, god is (not) watching - it is you chaps who nearly always start these things. Correct?


If you were honest, you would agree that it is almost always the atheists who start these things. And God is always watching.
Au-Pu
3 / 5 (3) Jan 08, 2012
That is progress.
Soon we will be able to produce purpose built people.
Hope they will continue to make trades people and people to do cleaning and garbage removal etc.
Otherwise we will quickly find ourselves living in a real shithole of a planet.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.7 / 5 (13) Jan 08, 2012
And - be honest now, god is (not) watching - it is you chaps who nearly always start these things. Correct?


If you were honest, you would agree that it is almost always the atheists who start these things.
No you KNOW that either kevin or QC or mabarker or anyone else with glory in their hearts will come here and spout at first opportunity, about all the wonderous things that god has created and that scientists will never understand. EVERY evolution thread, EVERY population thread, EVERY etc.
And God is always watching.
Yes and if you do not declare that there is no god but him and that muhammud is his prophet, he will FRY your ass. Declaring that any human can be god is BLASPHEMY dont you know that?

Just who do you think you are? Some sufi mystic?? Some whirling freaking dervish? Some animalist? Some dionysian heraclean something or other? Go flog yourself.
ArcainOne
2.5 / 5 (2) Jan 09, 2012
Chimeran monkies, I say awesome. At the same time planet of the apes begins to play in the back of my head. How far IS too far? We pushed science to new levels when we declared no human embryo stem cells for research and scientists, with kudos to them, found other just as effective ways to produce stem cells. While as far as I know the chimerization of an animal with human (see humanized sheep) or other animal DNA does absolutely nothing to their mental abilities. One day someone may devise a method to move an ape up the evolutionary ladder, and if they do choose to do so we must remember it is not only our creation but should be treated with respect.

I only assume many people make a similar jump in their own thoughts regarding playing with animal genetics, not realizing it is (apparently) not that easy.
MediocreSmoke
2 / 5 (4) Jan 09, 2012
If we want to move stem cell therapies from the lab to clinics and from the mouse to humans, we need to understand what these primate cells can and can't do. We need to study them in humans, including human embryos." He emphasized, however, that there is no practical use or intention for anyone to produce human cbimeras.


In other words, lets just do these things because we can. There is no practical use.

Insane practices.


Maybe you missed the end of what you quoted, right after the word practical which you noticed, where it says there is also no intention, and both of those statements were in reference to human chimeras, not the monkeys featured in this article. They shouldn't let angry virgins type, the semen coming out of your eyes is clouding your vision.
LivaN
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 09, 2012
dogbert
He emphasized, however, that there is no practical use or intention for anyone to produce human chimeras.


In other words, lets just do these things because we can. There is no practical use.

Insane practices.

No, the quote clearly states there is no intention to 'just do these things' which have no practical use. In any case saying there is no practical use to producing human chimeras is more of an ethical/religion defence, rather than factual statement.
LivaN
5 / 5 (4) Jan 09, 2012
absent a moral standard or standard setter, morality has little meaning. That is, secular morality is a highly variable and disposable quantity.


That is ironic as your non-secular morality is blatantly variable. Sure you could beat your slave to death, stone your whore wife, and kill the blasphemer back in the day, but now that's just morally wrong. A good thing your 'standards' have changed with time.
dogbert
1 / 5 (3) Jan 09, 2012
MediocreSmoke and LivaN,
Why not quote the entire paragraph:
"We cannot model everything in the mouse," Mitalipov continued. "If we want to move stem cell therapies from the lab to clinics and from the mouse to humans, we need to understand what these primate cells can and can't do. We need to study them in humans, including human embryos." He emphasized, however, that there is no practical use or intention for anyone to produce human chimeras.


Notice that he says "We need to study them in humans, including human embryos."? He then says "there is no practical use or intention for anyone to produce human chimeras". Hence my comment:
In other words, lets just do these things because we can. There is no practical use.

Insane practices.

dogbert
2 / 5 (5) Jan 09, 2012
Otto,
Declaring that any human can be god is BLASPHEMY dont you know that?


No, I don't know that. And I have made the comment many times that we are gods. God himself has said it.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (15) Jan 09, 2012
No, I don't know that.
Yes you do because I just told you. A few billion of your fellow Religionists would enthusiastically agree with me.
And I have made the comment many times that we are gods. God himself has said it.
You mean in your OPINION god said that right? Because in the equally valid OPINIONS of a few billion fellow Religionists, you would BURN for such a statement. Better reread chapter and verse to make sure you got it right.

But if we are gods you must admit that some of us are a little higher in stature than others? Like pat Robertson who regularly has intimate discussions with the head honcho about the future in detail?
http://www.huffin...669.html

-Heck if all us gods could do this we would all be rich like him I guess. You rich dog? Not in spirit you know but in real mammonstoff? Universal prescience would not be good for free markets.
dogbert
2 / 5 (5) Jan 09, 2012
Otto,
You rant when you have no idea what you are talking about:
Psalm 82:6

I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (14) Jan 09, 2012
Sorry dog but you appear to have gotten it horribly wrong. Your unique interpretation threatens your soul.

"In the 1960s, a debate emerged over the interpretation of Ps 82:6-7 in relation to John 10:34-36, the general lines of which were summarized by Anthony Hanson. He called attention to four different ways in which Psalm 82 was understood in Jewish traditions, with reference to (a) angels, (b) Melchizedek, (c) judges, and (d) Israel at Sinai. All four interpretations are attested to in midrashic literature..."
http://www.nd.edu...ods.html

-NONE of these 4 includes either you or me.
Cont
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (15) Jan 09, 2012
This is also clear from the context:

 1 God presides in the great assembly; 
   he renders judgment among the "gods":

 2 "How long will you defend the unjust 
   and show partiality to the wicked?...

 5 "The 'gods' know nothing, they understand nothing...

 6 "I said, 'You are "gods"; 
   you are all sons of the Most High.' 
7 But you will die like mere mortals; 
   you will fall like every other ruler."

-Your translation does not include the proper punctuation which indicates holy sarcasm. It is clear that god is chastising beings of some sort who only THINK they are gods. Like you.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (15) Jan 09, 2012
God also makes this ominously clear in the previous psalm:

8 Hear me, my people, and I will warn you -
   if you would only listen to me, Israel!
9 You shall have no foreign god among you;
   you shall not worship any god other than me.
10 I am the LORD your God,
   who brought you up out of Egypt.
Open wide your mouth and I will fill it.

-I would even interpret this psalm as the description of the penalty for blasphemy, and the following psalm as a specific example of this blasphemy. Of course this is only my OPINION, but you must admit I am perhaps a little more impartial than you? And it appears that I am in line with the vast majority in this.

So if I were judging you as god is judging similar such 'gods' in psalm 82, I would have to declare heresy and sentence you to sit in the fiery lake for awhile (eternity)
dogbert
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 09, 2012
Otto,

As I said, you rant when you have no idea what you are talking about. God is talking to Israel and calling them gods.

Hint: The children of God are necessarily gods.
Scyfurion
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 09, 2012
Dog... Otto is a certified troll. He sniffs out anyone who mentions religion and then proceeds to send an entire thread down the toilet. We must treat him as we treat any want-to-be megalomaniac hell bend on subjugating anyone he believes to be lesser beings (in his case anyone who believes in god because god didn't give him what he prayed for one Christmas). We ignore him, and simply keep an eye on them to insure others do not fall into their trap of eternal yapping. In the end we really don't care what he is talking about anyway. If we all recognize not to respond to these people eventually there will be no place for them, and we can finally get back to talking about the damn Chimeric Monkeys!
dogbert
Jan 09, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Deathclock
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 09, 2012
I'm confused -- what exactly are these things people are talking about: "spirit" and "soul"? I mean - exactly what.


Good question. In order to have a meaningful discussion about something you must know what that thing is. I suggest we all postpone this discussion until someone can provide a concise definition and empirical evidence of a "soul".
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (15) Jan 09, 2012
Dog... Otto is a certified troll. He sniffs out anyone who mentions religion and then proceeds to send an entire thread down the toilet. We must treat him as we treat any want-to-be megalomaniac undsoweiter
Blah? Maybe you should just go back to asleep little Sockepuppe.
As I said, you rant when you have no idea what you are talking about. God is talking to Israel and calling them gods.

Hint: The children of God are necessarily gods.
This reminds me of something jebus said.

31 Again dogbert picked up stones to stone him, 32 but otto said to him, "I have shown you many good works from [more learned people who know far more about these things than you.] For which of these do you stone me?"

-I only convey the opinions of others about this. The more correct NIV version of your verse says:

6 "I said, 'You are "gods";
you are all sons of the Most High.'

-and if we are to interpret this in the same literal way you suggest, god meant only the men, correct?
Scyfurion
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 09, 2012
Indeed dogbert, ye have been given great wisdom here. Note that the otto creature has changed his tone a bit, he is slightly more calm, more calculated about his responses. Immediatly threated by the new wild card he is unsure how to deal with at the moment, and now it bates you to respond. Be strong Dog, it is a trap, do not acknowledge the creature, you can end this now! Do it for the monkeys dog... the monkeys!
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (15) Jan 09, 2012
God is talking to Israel and calling them gods.

Hint: The children of God are necessarily gods.
Yah I understand its relatively hard to think rationally in the middle of an epiphany high, but try to focus here for a moment. If you had read the article by the learned gentleman
http://www.nd.edu...ods.html

-You would have seen that he agrees that god was referring to the children of israel. But this was at a critical point in their wanderings - when they were at sinai, and after they had made the golden calf.

"When Israel at Sinai received God's Torah and obeyed, this led to genuine holiness which resulted in deathlessness; hence, Israel could be called god because deathless. But when disobedient and sinful, Israel deserved the wages of sin, that is, death; hence, Israel could be called man."

-And this specifically due to blasphemy, which you yourself are sadly guilty of. God was admonishing in psalms, not acknowledging.

Read the article. Save your (imaginary) soul.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (16) Jan 09, 2012
No wait...I,I... I think I Understand... God in both psalms and john are saying that xians - I mean CHRISTians - are GODS once again because they have accepted the word of god into their hearts.

They will indeed live forever in Paradise with all their dead relatives alive and strong and young again, because jebus - no, Jeezus - No dammit, JESUS - has showed them the Way! Hallelujah he and us has arisened for all time to come!

Naw Im just funnin with ya. I side with all the many more jews and moslems and hindii and all the rest who clearly and plainly KNOW that claiming to be a god is a SIN whether you say it today, or whether some little godman guru said it 2k yrs ago.

Except that I and many millions of other committed unbelievers and anti-religionists think - no, we KNOW - you are ALL dangerously and critically full of shit.
Scyfurion
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 09, 2012
As you can see the otto creature is now beginning to starve, desperately clawing and biting its way for someone to consume. It is desperately trying to keep the thread alive even resorting to anger and name calling. Soon... it will move on in search of a new source of sustenance, new people who will listen to it and be provoked into long and endless debates that spiral out of control into the oblivion of religious ideology. We may have a small victory here people, but remember these creatures thrive on attention and will say anything to get it.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (13) Jan 09, 2012
As you can see the otto creature is now beginning to starve, desperately clawing and biting its way for someone to consume.
No actually I think I won. Isnt that obvious?
It is desperately trying to keep the thread alive even resorting to anger and name calling.
Mich mal du Gummischwanz.
...be provoked into long and endless debates that spiral out of control into the oblivion of religious ideology.
Lets not forget - I am the good guy because god is on THEIR side.
and will say anything to get it.
Actually I was pretty much done until you showed up. You provoked me. Otto is an easy mark.

Seriously arent marmots and other rodents supposed to emerge in the spring? I blame AGW.