digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at timesonline.co.uk

THE RISE OF MANIMAL!

timesonline.co.uk — UK scientists get green light for half animal, half human embryos.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • deepvirus, on 05/20/2008, -5/+92ok ManBearPig is now believable as well as "Island of Dr. Moreau"
    • rmw132, on 05/20/2008, -2/+16ManBearPig: An Inconvenient Truth
      • romistrub, on 05/20/2008, -7/+1Not funny.

        HEY! You're from New Jersey!

        Well then, that explains it.
    • sockpuppets, on 05/20/2008, -0/+22Are you cereal?
    • stranglethorne, on 05/20/2008, -1/+25ManBearPig... it's half man.. half bear.. half pig
      • satyarth, on 05/20/2008, -2/+7No, its half man and half bearpig
      • BrapAllgood, on 05/20/2008, -0/+3Actually, if memory serves properly this morning, it's half man, half bear...andhalfpig. And absolutely cereal.
      • Reziarfg, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Nono satyarth, It's quite obviously half bear half manpig.
    • psg188, on 05/20/2008, -0/+3I'm obviously more scared of ManBearPig, but don't forget the Pig Man that will steal your car.
    • ilikesboobs, on 05/20/2008, -0/+4I can't wait 'till they can infuse me with another animal, so that I can have the strength of a grown man and a puppy dog.
    • OwdenBowden, on 05/20/2008, -3/+5On a serious note: THIS IS A BAD IDEA!
    • verynegative, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2What about a Spider-pig?
    • faithfreedom, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2Meet your in-laws
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:The_Young_Famil ...
  • Fallout911, on 05/20/2008, -10/+45This is great news.
    My grandmother is suffering from Alzheimer's and it's just horrible, any possible cure for this is welcomed.
    • JohnnyHotballs, on 05/20/2008, -21/+44it's all fun and games until manbearpig rapes your grandma in the *****.
    • SuperWinner, on 05/20/2008, -12/+3I think your comment falls under rule 34
    • valis, on 05/20/2008, -4/+19My mother-in-law also suffers from Alzheimer's and I agree - it's just horrible. I'd like very much for a cure, although in her advanced age I don't hold out much hope.

      That being said, however ... does the end justify the means? I'm cautious about supporting this particular turn of events.
      • romistrub, on 05/20/2008, -16/+4That's because you're stupid.

        Good luck to you.

        (*****, I've turned into a troll!)
      • ixid, on 05/20/2008, -3/+3"does the end justify the means?"

        What do you see as the means that require justification? A human embryo's just a little ball of cells, if we start assigning value to potential lives then trying to apply that concept generally quickly becomes absurd.
        • PawnsOfJoshua, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2This issue is not the value of potential human lives..the issue is "what could go wrong?"
    • bmac1009, on 05/20/2008, -10/+3Sorry, but Ends don't justify the means, especially compromising ethics like in this situation. #1: messing with human embryos is wrong. #2: Involving animals with humans is totally wrong and just insane. Does accidentally infecting humans with AIDS in the process of finding a cure for AIDS make the infections right? I'd contest no and I know our Creator would too.
      • TobiasParker, on 05/20/2008, -1/+5*Your creator.
      • bmac1009, on 05/20/2008, -2/+0With all due respect, when 'your creator' sends his son to walk on this earth, and his son walks on water, turns water into wine, saves people from disease, and has the single largest group of followers the earth has ever seen, perhaps 'your creator' will be 'legit'. But until then, I think it is well established that the Creator I was referring to is the real creator of our earth.
        • jayemee, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Err...really? You really think that the existence of a creator is well established?

          Really?
    • Radica1Faith, on 05/20/2008, -5/+6I don't understand how Human Animal hybrids can help cure Alzheimer's. And I don't know, I'm all for science and stem cell research, but human-animal hybrids? I'd rather the world not end up like a crappy B sci-fi movie.
      • twisterrust, on 05/20/2008, -5/+6Do you understand how Mechanical Engines works? Do you know how Nuclear Power plants work?
        but you still sit in your car and use all the power in your house don't you?
        FTA
        “In many ways we are like children playing with land mines without any concept of the dangers of the technology we are handling,” *****
    • ogloom, on 05/20/2008, -0/+5I feel your pain. My grandma has extremely advanced Alzheimers. I'll introduce myself to her, and within 10 seconds shes forgotten who I am. Tis very sad..
    • AgmLauncher, on 05/20/2008, -4/+2So your grandmother suffers from Alzheimers, meanwhile we'll have life suffering from being half human/half animal. Whose suffering is more important?
    • Melatinini, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1They should get working on some human-elephant embryos!
  • LadyAmerica, on 05/20/2008, -35/+11Sick, sick, sick!
    • mrloco, on 05/20/2008, -3/+9dont resist.
    • Vinperez, on 05/20/2008, -4/+1rofl
    • Chrontius, on 05/20/2008, -1/+4why, why, why?
    • Kent4jmj, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1Tsunami, 9/11, Myanmar, China, Central America, Katrina,etc. etc. etc. there is an increase and the groaning in nature will continue to escalate in size, numbers and intensity. They are called Chastisements. They come in the form of Plagues Natural Disasters, and Famines. Strange Diseases, Storms Earthquakes and Volcanoes and Food Shortages. Sound familiar. They are connected to man's sinfulness.

  • CarolMarie40DFL, on 05/20/2008, -46/+15It is a truly sad commentary on our times that a clear majority have voted to approve the mixing of human and animal embryo's. There are so called protections in place to prevent them from being placed in a womb or living beyond 14 days, but what of these innocent beings who are part human and part animal? Why is it then considered better to kill a 14 day embryo? They shouldn't be created in the first place.

    And Fallout911 - No - this will not provide cures. Really that is hype that is totally unsubstantiated by the science. The scientific advances that are providing cures come from adult stem cells, cells that have developed for a minimum of 21 days past fertilization are required to get past the issue of teratoma formation (tumors of hair, bone and tooth tissue - really nasty tumors). The advances that have been made using adult stem cells are absolutely incredible and people are already being treated using these therapies, they're not simply theoretical.

    And, if you really want to get fancy, there is the newest iPSC (induced Pluripotent Stem Cells) which allow you to create "cloned, embryonic-like" stem cells without ever having to kill a single embryo. No life, human or part human, is ever sacrificed to provide either a cure or to be used as research material. The cell of origin in iPSC's is a cell from the patient himself, so the resulting stem cells are a perfect genetic match, meaning there is no concern with tissue type mismatch and the complications that come with that.
    • Y2JCrisis, on 05/20/2008, -1/+6I don't know what kind of bra size 40DFL is, but it sure sounds impressive.
    • mojo31979, on 05/20/2008, -2/+0While many may agree with your views, the fact of the matter is this sort of research has been going on for a very long time already. Now that it's at least supported and "legal" as it were, the public is aware of what is going on....for the most part. All the bitching and moaning in the world will not stop scientists and researchers from pursuing this path.
    • fultron89, on 05/20/2008, -2/+1Im pretty sure no one here reads more than one line before forgetting what they're doing.
  • bullcutter, on 05/20/2008, -15/+104"Why is it then considered better to kill a 14 day embryo? They shouldn't be created in the first place."

    Because a 14-day embryo doesn't have a brain, therefore it is incapable of feeling pain, much less any emotion. It cannot think, move, feel. It is certainly not self-aware, conscious, and most certainly does not have a conscience. All these things require months of development.

    This time, the opportunities for advancement in research and our scientific understanding of disease will not be held back by small-minded fearmongers who have relatively little grasp on the importance of this work, its implications, and on what it even biologically means to be human.
    • synapz, on 05/20/2008, -39/+2Just a little bag of meat and bones, huh?

      ***** you.
      • ElAssoWipo, on 05/20/2008, -7/+17Oh look, a degenerate.


        The religious reproduction theory:
        "God puts souls in women's tummies!"
        • synapz, on 05/20/2008, -12/+3The great irony here is that someone who respects life is being called a degenerate by one who does not.
        • ElAssoWipo, on 05/20/2008, -1/+7You're supposed to turn the other cheeck.

          To get slapped again.
      • PropCulture, on 05/20/2008, -2/+27Actually, no. There are not any meat or bones in a 14 day old embryo.
      • shoveitfatty, on 05/20/2008, -1/+12Its actually more like a little cluster of cells....
    • Zippo, on 05/20/2008, -2/+21Exactly... an embryo is just that, an embryo. It is a clump of cells. Eventually, yes, it will become a fetus and eventually a full organism... but an embryo is hardly a human life.
    • MrFurious2k, on 05/20/2008, -23/+10Bull -

      I believe that life inherently has value and that embryos are human. Biologically and genetically they are human and it is wrong to take their lives on the pretext that their loss will advance our research. How do we justify killing innocent people to only potentially help others?

      I think that it can become a slippery slope to justify killing or admitting embryos to the human race based on their current mental capabilities. This argument has been used in a far more sinister context and I think it a mistake to believe that such a line of thinking won’t be used again.

      It’s important to recognize that there are serious ethical implications for research that requires the decimation of embryos and it is neither small minded nor fear mongering to raise those concerns. One need not be religious to have a sincere respect for innocent life and believe that we cannot take it on the blind faith that such a sacrifice (paid for by others) will someday save people.

      Edit: For clarification, I'm referring to 100% human embryos.
      • TLAKABM, on 05/20/2008, -1/+6Skin cells are biologically and genetically human.
        If I scratch few skin cells off, does that constitute killing a 'life'?
        According to argument you've made; yes.

        I know almost exactly how you're going to respond, because all you pro-lifers have exactly the same invalid argument.
        • MrFurious2k, on 05/20/2008, -2/+1No, they're biologically and genetically human skin cells with no potential to become anything more.
        • f1bber, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2What if you genetically altered skin cells to become embryonic stem cells before killing them?
        • TLAKABM, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1Yes, potential. That is *exactly* the argument I knew you would respond with.

          They're nothing but potential. Potential is meaningless. Potential is literally nothing.
          Everyone one of my sperm is a potential life. They just need are the right circumstances, just like these embryos (assuming these engineered embryos could even grow to full term, which they almost certainly don't).

          These embryos will *never* become anything because they're grown in a test tube; they don't have the right conditions. So they're NOT potential life.

          But like I said anyway, the embryos in all likelihood cannot grow to full term under *any* circumstances.

          Your argument does not hold.
      • ixid, on 05/20/2008, -1/+3Your view is ridiculous, every time you hit your hand on something a little too hard more cells will die than are in an embyro and they're every bit as biologically and genetically human as the embryo cells. It's like being upset that paint is spilled because it had the potential to be an artistic masterpiece.

        The magnitude of the price when set against the benefits is why I call your view ridiculous, not to be offensive. A few dead cells set against preventing enormous human suffering. That's a price I'd be willing to pay.
        • MrFurious2k, on 05/20/2008, -2/+1An embryo doesn't equal skin cells. Skin cells have no such potential. You're also making a very weak analogy in that paint - left to its own devices is nothing more than paint. Embryo's given time develop into a human being.
        • ixid, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2Really? Left to their own devices embryos die. Oh right, you meant when correctly nourished and protected, sperm and eggs also have the potential to become humans under the right circumstances, perhaps we should ban masturbation? Funnily enough with similar technologies skin cells DO have the potential to become embryos so aside from some shortened telomeres, which we're fast coming up on knowing how to fix, the difference is not that great.
      • sodade, on 05/20/2008, -1/+3The inherent value of a human life is not a fixed thing. It depends greatly on the society and the overall population compared to the sustainability of said population. Killing a human embryo has much less impact on that value than allowing people to breed indiscriminately.
        • MrFurious2k, on 05/20/2008, -2/+1So - life has no inherent value? If I should live in a society in which we routinely remove political dissidents who affect the society at large, does this mean I'm within my rights to do so? Perhaps their impact is only negative in my view does this further my justification? Who makes the determination on whether one life is worth more than another?
      • warriorscot, on 05/20/2008, -1/+3Its hardly a sacrifice to destroy something that has no value and no potential value, human life can't be made in a lab you can start it but without the involvement of human reproductive equipment it can never be a life and certainly a Chimera like those being created would never be viable other than in the early stages hence the reason for making the things to avoid the whole issue.
      • funkywood, on 05/20/2008, -1/+2"For clarification, I'm referring to 100% human embryos."

        This shows your respect for LIFE. So long as it's not human it may as well be ***** but the miniscule chance that it might become a human and it's suddenly ultra precious. What if it was chimp stem cells? I suppose that would be fine? What if it was a black person would that be ok too? Where do YOU draw the line?

        Stop basing decisions on primitive selfish feelings that are contradictory to the obvious truth and reality.
      • staffa, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1What is time but a dimension within which we can only travel forward. The future will be as true as the now and is defined by what we do. All actions have consequences and those consequence are real, regardless of whether it takes a mere second or 20 years to be fully recognized. Just because we are limited in how we experience reality doesn't mean that reality is so limited. You abort your child now, 20 years hence they will still be dead. Are you so sure that the person they would have been would agree with you? Would you have been OK with your parents aborting you before you were born?

        "It's a hell of a thing, killin' a man. Take away all he's got, and all he's ever gonna have. "
        -Will Munny

        • bizarrocanuck, on 05/21/2008, -1/+0I would have been perfectly fine with my parents aborting me before I was born. Probably because I wouldn't have realized I was being aborted. I wouldn't have been a person, so yeah. Whatever.
      • sgglynn, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1"I believe that life inherently has value and that embryos are human."

        You are certainly entitled to your beliefs, but they are just that, YOUR personal beliefs. Others believe that human embryos are not human, and that is their belief. The fact is, it doesn't have pain, emotion, bones, meat, skin, brain, it is not self-aware, or conscious. It IS a cluster of cells that CAN, if properly protected, nurtured, and in exactly the right set of circumstances for a very long time, become a human.
    • jabelar, on 05/20/2008, -1/+9It depends on your definition of killing. If it means cutting off the remainder of a potential life then destroying an embryo is still killing it. That clump of cells is pre-disposed to live and develop.

      With that being said, humans do a lot of killing, including letting full-grown humans die elsewhere in the world through inaction on starvation, abuse, disease.

      So perhaps it is reasonable to say creating and destroying embryos is acceptable killing, since we tolerate so much of it already.
      • warriorscot, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1It has a potential to keep living up to a certain threshold, the same threshold at which they are often destroyed before they do it themselves, without being implanted into a woman they could never reach that potential to become human and since that won't happen its has no net potential.

        On a personal note I place the value of a life on a balance of potential and committed resources, a fully grown human is valuable in potential(creating more humans) and in commited resources(we are expensive to grow and raise) thus making the life valuable. A foetus is somewhere in between it could have the potential to grow into something that could live and it has had a certain amount of resources committed in bearing it, so its an even split on life/death on foetus to me. An embryo though is not even a foetus it has no independent potential and next to no resource value, without significant intervension it could never even be human, it has more potential value in what can be gained from it scientifically to improve actual living human beings and prevent the waste of their potential and resources which are vastly more valuable than an embryo or even a million of them.
    • drgruney, on 05/20/2008, -2/+3While I disagree with you I have to say that your the first to offer me a valid, and well thought out argument supporting the destruction of embryos.

      I can agree to disagree.
      • Stevethegreat, on 05/20/2008, -0/+5Every day that such treatments are set behind there will be thousands of people dying as a result. You're willing to save donated embryos and let grown people (who are not "donated" by anyone) to die due to our inaction. You choose the unborn from the born, that sounds immoral to me, especially since those embryos were never to be fertilized in the first place if it was not for the research.
        • drgruney, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1Which is exactly why they shouldn't be fertilized in the first place.
    • ilikesboobs, on 05/20/2008, -1/+7Get over yourself. Embryos are just as alive as your balls and you can definitely live with one less.
    • JD420, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1What i'm thinking about is the whole letting the embryo grow scenario... I don't know how the science behind it works but i can't see much more than limited research if they leave them as embryos. Just to note, personally I think it is pretty much detestable.
  • Surferess, on 05/20/2008, -18/+10I'm still uncomfortable with the whole 1/2 human 1/2 animal thing. As long as we are sure it only goes for 14 days as an embryo maybe it is ok, but how do you get scientists to stop there?
    • directrix13, on 05/20/2008, -4/+2With a gun!
    • DocGlass, on 05/20/2008, -0/+10I'd say it is 2/2 animal. We are just naked apes with huge egos.
    • Gorvan, on 05/20/2008, -0/+6It's not 1/2 human and 1/2 animal, it's 99.9% human and 0.1% animal. What this permits is cytoplasmic embryos, not true chimeras or true hybrids, which is what you're referring to.
      • dynelol, on 05/20/2008, -0/+3And what they're running towards. You know they want to do it.
    • Zippo, on 05/20/2008, -0/+3chances are it wouldn't survive much longer... too incompatible.
    • ibycus, on 05/20/2008, -0/+3UK legislation has allowed experimentation on human embryos less than 14 days old for 18 years (Human Fertilisation & Embryology Act, 1990). In that time more than 2 million embryos have been created for experimental purposes, and not one, *not one* has been allowed to progress beyond the 14 day deadline (indeed it is illegal to do so).
      The scientists who you claim would push these limits beyond what is allowed simply do not exist. And research in this area is too strictly regulated to allow them to get away with it if they did.
      (Also, what Gorvan said... no such thing as a true hybrid will be created anyway).
    • tommgunn, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2But still.... don't forget about the guns!
  • bohemianowl, on 05/20/2008, -12/+6When they say they got the go-ahead means they have been doing this for a while and now can publicly release information pertaining to their tragic experiments. Somewhere the Isle of Dr. Moreau is in full bloom.
    • MetisAlfa, on 05/20/2008, -2/+4If you knew anything about how scientific research is carried out, particularly in the UK, you'd know how stupid your comment is... unlike the common view, scientists are NOT all, if any, Dr Frankenstein...
  • casf1b, on 05/20/2008, -3/+18"In The Year 2525....."
    • BeeArePro, on 05/20/2008, -5/+1....you won't be alive"
    • AshamedAmerican, on 05/20/2008, -2/+3"...if man is still alive..."
    • Gioleb, on 05/20/2008, -5/+1I hate you for getting that stuck in my head. My day is ruined!
  • uselessexpert, on 05/20/2008, -7/+46WOW! I can just picture the religious right on this...
    All hell is going to break loose on this one.

    • romistrub, on 05/20/2008, -9/+28Lesson #1: Opposing scientific progress using unscientific reasoning only serves to make the stupid, stupider.
      • rryanhayes, on 05/20/2008, -9/+1you must be one of the stupid, for "stupider" is not a word. In order to be one of the intelligent, you would have used the words "more stupid". Used in a sentence it would look something like this: "romistrub opened his mouth, and the world realized that he was much 'more stupid' than his name would suggest."
        • romistrub, on 05/20/2008, -1/+8A) Way to non-sequitur.
          B) Just because it isn't a word, doesn't mean it shouldn't be. I'm all for streamlining language, starting with superlatives.
          C) *You ;)
        • rryanhayes, on 05/20/2008, -2/+0ok, i had to dig you up because your reason "B" made me laugh.
        • romistrub, on 05/20/2008, -1/+4I should expand on (B) for no reason beyond mental masturbation. Linguistics shows us that terms, when used often enough, become accepted into systematic language. "Ne X pas" is a great French example of this (look it up, if you are interested). By consistently using "stupider", I am trying to forceably streamline English, as stated above.

          N.B.: "forceably" is another example
        • jun2san, on 05/20/2008, -1/+1"....stupid, stupider."

          Lesson # 2: There's no need for a comma in this situation.
        • romistrub, on 05/20/2008, -1/+5jun2san, Commas were originally used to signify short pauses in spoken word. When writing informally, I continue to use them this way, because it breaks up visually what might have been confusing otherwise.
    • aflaks, on 05/20/2008, -9/+28***** the religious right. Any progress society has ever made was due to the defiance of the Religious right.
      • synapz, on 05/20/2008, -8/+6Who the ***** are you talking about? It's this false dichotomy that has so many people ***** in the head - why are you propagating it?

        Here, let me rewrite your statement for you:

        "***** the State. Any progress society has ever made was due to the defiance of the State."

        That's better. Now wake the ***** up and stop spreading this stupid *****.
        • blast_flame, on 05/20/2008, -1/+6Both are correct. All progress society has made has generally been in defiance of both the state and the religious right.
        • synapz, on 05/20/2008, -0/+4Hey, theist and atheist libertarians can get along. ;)
        • sgglynn, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1The State was a great show.

          "I wanna dip my balls in it!"
      • directrix13, on 05/20/2008, -3/+3Not really, but nice try. You may disagree with the religious right's interference with science (as do I), but you extrapolated way too much there.
      • rryanhayes, on 05/20/2008, -8/+0you are absolutely right! Like the death camps that Hitler set up! That was amazing progress for society accomplished by defying the "Religious right". What a profound observation!
        • romistrub, on 05/20/2008, -0/+41) All A is in B, does not imply that all B is in A
          2) aflaks made a statement saying that "all progress" (A) is in "defiance of the religious right" (B)
          3) Your refutation by example shows that there is one (B) outside (A). In words: that there is one defiance of the religious right that is not part of "all progress"

          Therefore, by (1), (2), and (3) your refutation fails.
        • Skeith3294, on 05/20/2008, -1/+3umm the Holocaust was condoned (in part) by using religious persecution. Hitler used Catholicism as a major selling point to initiate it.
        • rryanhayes, on 05/20/2008, -3/+0lol, i think that you should stop with the logic b.s. just because I busted you for using the word "stupider" in your comment above. Now youre just overcompensating.
        • romistrub, on 05/20/2008, -0/+3"i think that you should stop with the logic b.s."

          I lol'd

          I think you should *start* with that "logic b.s."
      • tommq, on 05/20/2008, -1/+10e.g. Enlightenment v. Middle Ages
    • empiric, on 05/20/2008, -4/+2Possibly. Eventually, though, the definitional "pressure" will just lead to additional clarity. If someone cannot differentiate themselves from an animal by reference to any physical attribute, and actively denies any metaphysical attribute which would so differentiate them, the "right" will likely just stop arguing with them and consider them an animal, as requested. This entails by direct necessary consistency the presence of no rights for those clothes-wearing bipeds (vegetarians--possibly avoiding irrational hypocrisy if still expecting rights), as they've spent a lifetime demanding, and no, applies not at all to those who -can- reference an attribute of metaphysical differentiation for themselves.

      But, with regard to you other point, yeah, hell would be a good point for this to "break loose".
    • widdershins, on 05/20/2008, -3/+10Luckily, we don't really have much of a religious right in the UK. Those we do have are generally 90 year olds who are more concerned whether the vicar wants more tea.
    • raid517, on 05/20/2008, -1/+11This is Britain bear boy - where the 'religious right' can go ***** themselves....

      I already have my combo half rat, half turtle on order...
    • calantus, on 05/20/2008, -3/+0i can't say i particularly like it... and i'm religious but not like the religious people you're talking about
  • duckyinc, on 05/20/2008, -7/+16Just so you know.. scientist normally don't use dog eggs and won't let it grow up. (LOL @ religious people)
  • Planets, on 05/20/2008, -7/+18Sigh...

    Werewolves, anyone?
  • matt487, on 05/20/2008, -10/+5Is it half pig, half manbear? Or half bear, half manpig?
  • DeadSkinMask, on 05/20/2008, -18/+10I for one would like to welco...ah, forget it....
    • dynelol, on 05/20/2008, -2/+1bury it deep down in there and never bring it up again.
  • DigitalHippie73, on 05/20/2008, -3/+6Here is a video with more information if anyone is interested:

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=0UhX3LQ6lqw
  • smacksaw, on 05/20/2008, -2/+18This could get Chavs to vote since they'd move down the societal chain to whatever is created here, further marginalising them.
    • futureb, on 05/20/2008, -3/+1does not compute
    • swrostmore, on 05/20/2008, -0/+8dugg because my knowledge "chavs" is summed up by the "it's my precious, innit?" image macro of gollum in a golf hat....and gollum is pretty much 50% human and 50% animal, innit?
      • bosssmiley, on 05/20/2008, -0/+5You know all you need to of the chav untermenschen.
      • iticu, on 05/20/2008, -0/+6It's hard to explain what a chav is if you've never seen one, but I suppose you could call it a cross between a wigger and a douchebag.
        They also tend to hunt in packs and like shiny things.
  • DeviantDragon, on 05/20/2008, -2/+11Manimal vs. Animan
    • zantos420, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1centaur vs bigfoot?
    • meinhookah, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1Manimal vs. Animan

      Sounds like a scifi channel production.
  • wiirdo, on 05/20/2008, -2/+4Should you not be offended if it humps your leg during an important business meeting?
  • stranglethorne, on 05/20/2008, -3/+17I think the military would be pretty interested in this.

    Combine the brains of a human, the agility of a cat and the strength of a gorilla = ultimate soldier
    • ssj2119, on 05/20/2008, -6/+3ha... like they havent been doing this for years already
      • joeydoo, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2Magorillat
        Catamagor
        Goramancat
        Catorillam
        Manorillat
        ...... hmmmm. This science stuff is really is difficult, how do you choose???
    • jlynas, on 05/20/2008, -1/+4They'd be more likely to combine the brains of a sheep, the agility of a tortoise and the strength of a stick-insect...
      • jon30041, on 05/20/2008, -0/+4Sounds like fat people who staunchly hate science and yell from their little scooters about how God hates fags.
      • edwford, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1I think agility of a Sloth is more fitting.
    • Knucklecallus, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Exactly what we need. That will show those damn commie al-quesadilla , We will have won the arms race! United states is the best country in the world! Better than any other country, and especially france!
      • timissimit, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1too bad the research is going on in the UK, not the USA. GO USA, we is so smart!
    • roastedbagel, on 05/20/2008, -2/+1You mean... Chuck Norris
    • warriorscot, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Unfortunately it doesn't quite work that way, if only it did.
    • Cenobite, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Actually if it had the strength of a cat, the agility of a human and the brain of a gorilla, it would be more entertaining to watch.
  • RoroCo, on 05/20/2008, -1/+5Anyone want to bet that the first creation will look like George "The Animal" Steel?

    For you young uns... reference pic --> http://www.canoe.ca/WrestlingImagesS/steele_george ...
    • chicagodj, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Brilliant.

      Wow I think I just dated myself along with you.
    • FreeZyp0pS, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1or maybe the missing link- i think we will need Lou Albano to manage this one
  • PinkFloydFan, on 05/20/2008, -4/+66WOW! Humans are, by definition, animals.
    • romistrub, on 05/20/2008, -2/+8I demand to know whom amongst us dugg this man down! Whom, I say?!
    • riskybeats, on 05/20/2008, -0/+18Why are you getting dugg down? We are in the animal kingdom. It is usually people who have the god complex and think we are better than everything around us.
      • PinkFloydFan, on 05/20/2008, -0/+6Exactly, it's just a way for them to separate us from nature. I almost posted this again yesterday when I read about Ohio U giving that dog a degree. It was "the first animal to get a degree from a university". I guess mine didn't count.
    • Y2JCrisis, on 05/20/2008, -0/+7Somebody once argued this with me.

      "Imagine, we're in the DOG family. The CAT family. Absurd!"

  • itsgotyou, on 05/20/2008, -1/+27Now I can cross my DNA and sheep DNA without getting funny looks from the neighbors.
  • digitaldarkness, on 05/20/2008, -12/+7This is dangerous. Whats next?
    • twiztidsinz, on 05/20/2008, -0/+16Sharks with fricken lasers on their heads
      • Knucklecallus, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1The Brits should've struck down that ban on genetic mixing earlier so Dr. Evil could've actually had those
  • pegothejerk, on 05/20/2008, -14/+7killl.. me.
    • joeydoo, on 05/20/2008, -0/+4Haha. Best reply.

      So you win... and we carry out your request. Thank you for playing "The Running Digger"
  • plhofmei, on 05/20/2008, -16/+7But doesn't George W. Bush already look like a monkey!?
  • positron, on 05/20/2008, -3/+34When can I put in my order for a catgirl sex slave?
  • jake8689, on 05/20/2008, -1/+14can i have a pet centaur now
  • iguanapunk, on 05/20/2008, -1/+4This isn't news. I see these so called Manimals on a daily basis in our city center, pushing prams.
  • v1c1ous, on 05/20/2008, -1/+47OH GOD! What has science done? now we have ACTUAL FURRIES!
    • javguerre, on 05/20/2008, -0/+8i'm amazed it took this many replies before this conclusion was drawn.
  • Hoogs, on 05/20/2008, -18/+3See the line there? ====> |

    I think it was just crossed. Research is fine, but allowing one of these things to develop would be completely wrong IMO.
    • Duositex, on 05/20/2008, -1/+6See the thumbs down there? =========================================>

      I know it was just pressed.
      • Gwennyk, on 05/20/2008, -1/+1I agree with your opinion, but I feel the whole line part was over done.
    • riskybeats, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2Did you even read the article? Do you understand basic science, and that we are part of the animal kingdom? Why is this striking people as weird?
    • tehbored, on 05/20/2008, -0/+3Or awesome. It could also be awesome.
  • mattmy, on 05/20/2008, -4/+2I always wanted my very own monster to scare little kids with.
  • reljicd, on 05/20/2008, -2/+28KRAMER

    I'm tellin ya the pigman is alive. The governments been

    experimenting with pigmen since the fifties.

    Jerry

    Will you stop it. Just because a hospital gets a grant to study

    DNA doesn't mean they are creating a race of mutant pigmen.

    KRAMER

    Oh. Jerry wake up to reality. It's military thing. They're

    probably creating a whole army of pig warriors.

    George

    I wish there were pigmen. You get a few of these pigmen walking

    around I'm looking a whole lot better. Then if somebody wants to

    fix me up at least they could say, "Hey he's no pig-man!"

    Jerry

    Believe me, there'd be plenty of women going for the pig-men. No

    matter what the deformity you'll find some group of perverts

    attracted to it. "Oo that little tail turns me on."
  • JacksonDane, on 05/20/2008, -0/+35Humans aren't already animals?
    • JibberGeorge, on 05/20/2008, -0/+8Too bad we often forget that....
  • Klowner, on 05/20/2008, -10/+1My kzinti, my kzinti. My kzinti, my kzinti, wherever I go, he gooooooooes.
    • Klowner, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1So.. Not many fans of My Buddy or Larry Niven..
  • orangefly, on 05/20/2008, -4/+8too much time wondering if you could, that you never bothered to ask yourself if you should
    • MikeFallopian, on 05/20/2008, -1/+4What? The "should" came well before the "could" in this case. The benefits are potential cures to devastating diseases. And WEREWOLVES!!!
  • Coffeedemon, on 05/20/2008, -1/+2Aww I thought they were remaking the show. The transformation scenes scared me pretty good as a kid. But the topic? Human/non-human animal hybrids? Yeah what can possib-lie go wrong?
  • SirTheGuy, on 05/20/2008, -0/+13Minotaurs in the future?
  • chrgrose, on 05/20/2008, -0/+3...and all our best minds without tenure go to orbitz.com to schedule a one way ticket to the UK.
  • amoro99, on 05/20/2008, -3/+2The X-men cometh
    • joeydoo, on 05/20/2008, -0/+4... except there powers aren't flying, controlling weather and stuff.... they are 'breathing through tube', 'inside-out skin' and 'moo screams'.
  • ybotoby, on 05/20/2008, -5/+2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism

    It begins
    • blast_flame, on 05/20/2008, -1/+1I for one welcome our future transhuman overlords, mainly because I will be one of them.
      • Knucklecallus, on 05/20/2008, -1/+1I, for one, don't. I will accept raptor overlords, but no human "elites". GTA IV radio commercial: "You wouldn't settle for the wrong house, you wouldn't settle for the wrong car, so why would you settle for the wrong baby? Make your perfect baby with us so you won't have to drown it in the river!"
    • tehbored, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Hardly. This technology will be great for learning about genetics and finding cures for diseases, but will do little to improve humans as a whole. Cybernetic enhancements would likely be required to bring about true transhumans.
    • casf1b, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1Another name for the "Master Race" again?
  • Gwennyk, on 05/20/2008, -8/+5I can understand people would like to have their relatives who suffer with illnesses such as Alzheimer's helped or cured, but I do not like the sound of this. I'm not religious but I just don't think half animal half human embryos are a good way to go. There's just some things that we shouldn't tamper with.
    • Hetman, on 05/20/2008, -1/+7People were saying the same thing to Nikola Telsa as he was prefecting alternating current. It is elecrticity men are not supposed to tamper with it. It can kill us etc. Anyways AC is the backbone of modern day society so I would not be to gung hoe to stop people from experimenting.
      • Gwennyk, on 05/20/2008, -4/+3I can't see a half human-half sheep being the backbone of anything.
      • Hetman, on 05/20/2008, -2/+4But if it helps us come up with a cure for Cancer, alzhiemers and other diseases then it would be a great benifit for humanity. It is not like they are just doing it to do it. There is real research being done. And do not act like a cure for cancer would not be the backbone of modern medicine.
        • Gwennyk, on 05/20/2008, -1/+3They have probably already found cures for a lot of things, but the pharmaceutical companies make a ***** load more money selling the drugs that only keep the disease at bay for a little while longer than they would selling a drug that cured it completely.

          I didn't say it wouldn't be useful, but I don't think mixing two species is going to find us a cure for a big disease and I don't like the path it's leading down. Same with the ***** cloning thing.
  • tommq, on 05/20/2008, -2/+17That is going to piss off a lot of Christians.
    • idontunderstand, on 05/20/2008, -3/+10dont really understand what you mean by that? are you saying that all atheists believe in doing this sort of thing and that all Christians dont. Thats a bit of a generalisation I think.
      • XdigitalXdeathX, on 05/20/2008, -0/+4Dugg for the Name + First Sentence combo
      • tommq, on 05/20/2008, -0/+3I qualified the generalization with the phrase "a lot." I did not write, "...all of Christians." My meaning is that the religious right, which in an overwhelming majority reject activities such as genetic engineering and abortion, will certainly be displeased with the systematic abortion of genetically engineered humans.
    • snugsoho, on 05/20/2008, -3/+1As a Catholic it's somewhat disappointing that our country has taken this route but the scientists advising the RC in England have stated that scientists are not even interested in this sort of research as it's already well out of date but are much more interested in research being conducted in Japan in developing skin cells into stem cells without either destroying or violating human life.

      BBC story... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7101834.stm

      And before anyone jumps on me and diggs me down because their Grandma or whatever suffers from Alzheimer's then I do feel for you, I lost my Farther earlier this year to Dementia (one of the diseases touted that this research could cure) and despite that I still feel that this research is fundamentally wrong.
      • Screwy1138, on 05/20/2008, -3/+3Yeah, the ends don't justfy the means. I'm surprised how many people are willing to ignore any ethical discussion because the ends are worth it.
        • tehbored, on 05/20/2008, -0/+3I don't believe an embryo is a human life at all, so the way I see it, it's not unethical at all.
        • snugsoho, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1How can you possibly believe that an embryo is not a human life?
        • tommq, on 05/21/2008, -1/+1The !Kung, a cultural group who reside in Botswana, do not consider an individual to be alive until it is brought into the village from where it was born. It is documented that they will kill their children after birth. It is not considered unethical by them because the child is not viewed as alive yet. The definition of life is culturally constructed. I, like tehbored, also don't believe the embryo is human life. You have just arrived to different arbitrary conclusions than we.
    • funkywood, on 05/20/2008, -1/+1What gets me is how the religious right has nothing to say about the enormous ethical implications of biological research, especially brain research that deals with emotions and could seriously affect society, because their rule books were written before anything like this could be imagined. Because these out of date texts have no clues to guide them they just keep going on about the sanctity of human life when what it means to be human is rapidly changing.

      Thankfully we do still have modern philosophers and scientists who live in the modern world and want to debate these important things but the discussion always gets dragged back to irrelevant moral stuff like human embryos that are ethically harmless.
  • inajeep, on 05/20/2008, -5/+5I'm waiting for the insect and human cross breeds. Antman, Spiderman (of course), The Monarch, Bee Man "Ay yi! No me gusta!", The Tick... the possibilities are enormous.
  • mochaman, on 05/20/2008, -14/+2This has been the Scientist wet dream ever: to try to play God!
    Global worming and green gasses are already destroying the plane and now this will destroy the human race!
    I'm a Legend is coming brace yourself.
    • riskybeats, on 05/20/2008, -0/+6*****. We need a street corner and a sign for this guy, fast.
    • krevenJB, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1I lol'd
  • TheRealToma, on 05/20/2008, -2/+4They could just use alchemy... but theyd still need the philosophers stone :(
    • lolcat23, on 05/20/2008, -0/+0Its called the sphynx, but you have to bathe it once a week, and hear comments about how ugly it is.
  • Hetman, on 05/20/2008, -0/+6I just want a cat that will clean up its own hair. That would be the best pet ever.
  • suzywang3000, on 05/20/2008, -7/+3"she's ovulating..."

    "kill me... kill me!"
  • RedRaptor, on 05/20/2008, -8/+11Then, suddenly, furfags. Over 9000 of them.
    • Knucklecallus, on 05/20/2008, -4/+2What the ***** are furfags... *google search*
    • mcroyalty, on 05/20/2008, -1/+1Do not google search that plz for your own sake
  • drmangrum, on 05/20/2008, -1/+4This sounds too much like some anime fanatics wet dream. How long before they breed a viable cat/human hybrid to sell in japan?
    • stonebear, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1That's why the British don't really have to worry about this; whichever direction it goes, the Japanese will most certainly get there first, and shrug off the heat when they do.
  • Hassassin, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1If this doesn't end up with me having spider like abilities, then I don't care.
  • mephyt, on 05/20/2008, -1/+0Whoo boy...

    Does that mean we can get the cat-girls now?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 107 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.