Wesley J. Smith goes on and on about how eugenicists would want to create homogeneity among Humans, valuing traits such as intelligence and looks instead of love, compassion, and empathy. He feels that this would create an unnatural society of human beings, creating chaos among the world. What he fails to recognize however is that it is not nearly as simple to do this as he thinks. Right now, cloning is in its very elementary stages, and most research being done is for medical purposes. Through advancing our knowledge in cloning and genetic engineering, we can eliminate unwanted traits and genetic diseases.
Dawkins did not imply that genes are actually driven by motives or they have no foresight and do not plan ahead but that they act in a way that can be described as “selfish”. The “selfish gene” principle states that humans are simply “gene machines”, programmed to propagate our genes as far as we can. Natural selection ensures that the unsuccessful people do not get to spread their genes. Genes strive to replicate themselves, as if they are consciously planning how best this could be achieved. Dawkins basic premise was that all genes are in competition with each other to reproduce themselves for the next generation.
With his provoking work entitled The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins attempts to answer such questions as he proposes a shift in the evolutionary paradigm. Working through the metaphor of a "selfish gene", Dawkins constructs an evolutionary model using a gene as the fundamental unit of selection, opposed to the more commonly accepted belief of the species as the unit of selection. This "selfish gene", possessing a certain selfish emotional nature, acts as an independent entity fighting to ensure its replication in future generations, maximizing its number of descendents (2). Those successful in replicating have made the most of their given environment (1). For the interests of this paper, is it valid to assume that natural selection occurs at the level of DNA?
From reading Fukuyama’s Our Posthuman Future I gathered that if the human mind and body are shaped by tons of genes, as the decoding of the human genome seems to highlight, then biotechnologist will be able to change both one day in searching to perfect the flawed human clay, will modify human nature. Fukuyama asserts his thoughts about what in fact is at stake with biotechnology in which he states, “Is…the very grounding of the human moral sense”. Throughout the reading it became clear that Fukuyama’s purpose was not to delineate the consequences of biotechnology, but to argue that biotechnology threatens both the very distinction of a human being and the existing social fabric. He also asserts that government institutions should be established to evaluate and regulate biotechnological innovations. Throughout his book he investigates ways in which biotechnology may change the human essence with no intention to experience repeat of history and the hopes to stray far away from a post human future.
Charles Darwin proposed the theory of evolution to explain the origin, diversity and complexity of life. I will will disprove evolution by showing that natural selection only explains small evolutionary changes, collectively known as microevolution. Natural selection cannot drive large evolutionary changes, macroevolution. I will also show that the primordial soup, in which life supposedly evolved, did not exist. Neo-Darwinism incorporates the discoveries of modern science into Darwin's original theory while leaving the basic beliefs intact.
Should we continue with these scientific advances if we do not understand their consequences? This paper analyzes the above questions. In a life of technological advancement, we are faced with many ethical issues regarding the natural world. Humans have become capable of scientifically manipulating genes to create organisms that nature never intended to exist. Although we have the technology at our disposal, is it ethical to change living organisms to better satisfy our own needs?
Our foods and some animals are already being genetically modified, are humans the next step? Splice performs this ultimate experiment, and then suffers the ethical challenges and consequences the decision triggers. By making one catastrophic moral choice the scientists compromise themselves both morally and ethically, paving the way for further moral degradation. Does one bad ethical choice make it easier for the next one? According to Splice, the answer is most definitely.
These idols distort the truth, and thus stand in the way of science.” (Dror). Bacon, in his essay, The Four Idols, said, “The human understanding is of its own nature prone to suppose the existence of more order and regularity in the world than it finds” (Bacon). This statement alone, could almost crumble the majority of Darwin’s findings. Darwin found regularity and order in the process of natural selection, in fact that is what defined his theory. Darwin saw patterns in nature and discovered a theory which explained the patterns and
It is essential that human cloning is outlawed. It is salacious to perform, research, and promote these experiments on human subjects; it is neglectful, and shrewd to make the presence of this objective technology legal, let alone obtainable. Not only is human cloning hazardous and illogical, but morally incorrect and greatly dishonorable. The most alarming thought referring to human cloning is that it has the power to alter the foundation, that we as a nation, are assembled upon. What occurs after we take things too far and lose control?
That is obviously exculpatory. We view him as a victim of his biology, and our moral intuitions shift automatically. But I would argue that a brain tumor is just a special case of physical events giving rise to thoughts and actions, and if we fully understood the neurophysiology of any murderer 's brain, that would be as exculpatory as finding a tumor in