Upon seeing this model Johan Medici, who had spent the past decade attempting to develop computer simulations that replicate the way a human mind works, yelled,"FUUUUUUUCK!" before throwing himself out a window.
Redefining identity in terms of cell organization, would definitely solve some ethical issues like human cloning: different structures, different individuals.
Now, the remaining question would be, how to "read" the structure. We can sequence DNA from a tiny sample, but disassembling people wouldn't be... practical.
Tuvix was made, Tuvok and Neelix were recovered. Such are the paths of the universe, choices are just choices, right and wrong lie in the eye of the beholder.
So, underneath all the dramatic and flowery language, the argument being made seems to be “if the purpose of our biology is to make its own DNA persist, it wouldn’t make sense for biological chimeras to exist; based on the ability of cells to coordinate even with different DNA, the main goal seems to be human cells cooperating to make a general human form.”
This anthropomorphizing of biological building blocks is ridiculous. Cells and DNA are not in competition over who runs the show because they aren’t sapient. And I fully understand that the scientist making this claim understands that on an intellectual level but I mention it because the backbone of this argument is to conflate the literal and the figurative. The only inconsistency in cells being compatible despite having different “bosses” would be an ideological one and, because there isn’t any actual ideology at play, it doesn’t matter whether it’s consistent when attempting to describe it. You’ve proven a metaphor wasn’t literally true, congratulations.
But setting all that aside, this still doesn’t actually function as a counter argument. If we are to accept the premise of DNA’s authority as literal truth, is this function of unrelated cells to be compatible with each other not a logical extension of the DNA’s will? It more benefits the DNA for the organism to be viable even if that means other DNA also persists. It has a greater chance of reproducing itself if it’s not in a corpse.
Not only does the argument hinge on anthropomorphism, it also hinges on this metaphorical entity being self-destructively spiteful.
Lastly, it is downright comical to mention things like “cells know on their own that the heart goes on the left” when making an argument that a different characterization of biology is wrong based on the existence of rare biological edge cases. Some people’s hearts aren’t where hearts normally go. I’d let this kind of thing slide as a simplification of the truth were this not part of calling out exactly the same degree of simplification from someone else as being invalid.
The premise that “if the purpose of our biology is to make its own DNA persist, it wouldn’t make sense for biological chimeras to exist" seems flawed to begin with. Biological chimeras existing still helps perpetuate soneones DNA through offspring doesn't it?
Oh this is interesting, but how do we get identical twins then? How come we get two gastrulation processes doing the exact same dance side by side, if not DNA?
Also I didn't know about Copy Cat. Being a clone and coming out nothing like the original, what a cat thing to do. They'll wiggle out of anything, them adorable bastards.
Looking at NASA and Webb sites it appears this is a poorly cropped version of pictures from over a year ago, not something new like the article claims.
Science
Hot
This magazine is not receiving updates (last activity 0 day(s) ago).