|
03-22-2007, 03:58 PM
| #1 (permalink) |
| Gunzfactorian Veteran Hero  |  Make your own human? What are the Ingredients to make an Average Adult human.. Here they are: Water-35 Liters Carbon-20 Kg Ammonia- 4 Liters Lime-1.5 Kg Phosphorus-800 g Salt-250 g Salt Peter 100g Sulfur 80g Flourine7.5 g Iron 5g Silicon 3g And a trace amount of 15 other elements. In my opinion science has broken down the exact elements that compose an average human, but it's still not possible to create a true human - something is missing Hmmm.... Maybe science can discover this missing piece of the puzzle and create a human from ground up; therefore, it could eliminate cloning and open a new controversial topic, eh? A human that only plays Gunz =O. |
|  |
|
03-22-2007, 05:16 PM
| #2 (permalink) |
| Gunzfactorian Commando  | Re: Make your own human? O.o that reminds of FMA.... and HUMANS HAVE SALTPETER?!?!?!? i never knew that.... just so you people know.. thats what they put in fireworks, fertilizer... also homemade bombs and smoke grenades..... and wtf???? lime?!?!! |
| |
|
03-22-2007, 05:23 PM
| #3 (permalink) | |
| Gunzfactorian Veteran Hero | Re: Make your own human? Quote:
 . | |
|
| |
|
03-22-2007, 06:12 PM
| #5 (permalink) |
| Gunzfactorian Guardian  | Re: Make your own human? Only problem is that usually if you don't have an egg or sperm it does not blossom into an actually life, it noremally just becomes a mass of growing tissue. Until they are able to make an ANIMAL (not a plant, bacteria, or osmeting insignificant) without an egg or a sperm then making a human will remin impossible. Once thy find a way to clone an animal without an eg or sperrm, I guess the possibilities are there. |
|
| |
|
03-22-2007, 06:58 PM
| #6 (permalink) |
| Gunzfactorian Hero  Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: In your thoughts
Posts: 3,595
  | Re: Make your own human? Homunculus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Alchemy claims to have made false-humans before, but I highly doubt the claims. |
|
| |
|
03-22-2007, 07:22 PM
| #7 (permalink) |
| Gunzfactorian Patriot  | Re: Make your own human? Are you honestly that naive to think that if we combined all "ingredients" that a human is made of, that somehow a human would pop out of the mix? We need to be able to organize the elements of human growth and artificially create working cells. We have the means of creating DNA, but we don't have means of creating things like protein, or organizing DNA into chromosomes and other genetic carriers, and we don't have the means to create the structure and functions of a cell. |
|
| |
|
03-22-2007, 08:27 PM
| #8 (permalink) | |
| Gunzfactorian Commando | Re: Make your own human? Do robo-humans count? Quote:
| |
|
| |
|
03-22-2007, 08:37 PM
| #9 (permalink) | |
| Gunzfactorian Hero Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: In your thoughts
Posts: 3,595
| Re: Make your own human? Quote:
But bake it for 5 minutes and tadaa! Instant-jesus. | |
|
| |
|
03-22-2007, 08:37 PM
| #10 (permalink) | |
| Gunzfactorian Guardian | Re: Make your own human? Quote:
| |
|
| |
|
03-22-2007, 08:49 PM
| #12 (permalink) |
| Gunzfactorian Veteran Hero  | Re: Make your own human? I have thought about it, and here is what i have come up with: The term appears to have been first used by the alchemist Paracelsus. He once claimed that he had created a false human being that he referred to as the homunculus. The creature was to have stood no more than 12 inches tall, and did the work usually associated with a golem. However, after a short time, the homunculus turned on its creator and ran away. The recipe consisted of a bag of bones, semen, skin fragments and hair from any animal of which the homunculus would be a hybrid. This was to be laid in the ground surrounded by horse manure for forty days, at which point the embryo would form. In Carl Jung's studies of Alchemy, he believed the first recording of a homunculus in Alchemical literature appeared in the Visions of Zosimos, written in the third century A.D, although the actual word "homunculus" was never said. In the visions, Zosimos mentions encountering a man who impales him with a sword, and then undergoes "unendurable torment," his eyes become blood, he spews forth his flesh, and changes into "the opposite of himself, into a mutilated anthroparion, and he tore his flesh with his own teeth, and sank into himself," which is a rather grotesque personification of the ouroboros, the dragon that bites it own tail [which represents the dyophysite nature in alchemy: the balance of two principles. Zosimos later encounters several other homunculi, named as the Brazen Man, the Leaden Man, and so forth. Commonly, the homunculi "submit themselves to unendurable torment" and undergo alchemic transformation. Zosimos made no mention of actually creating an artificial human, but rather used the concept of personifying inanimate metals to further explore alchemy. There are also variants cited by other alchemists. One such variant involved the use of the mandrake. Popular belief held that this plant grew where semen ejaculated by hanged men (during the last convulsive spasms before death) fell to the ground, and its roots vaguely resemble a human form to varying degrees. The root was to be picked before dawn on a Friday morning by a black dog, then washed and "fed" with milk and honey and, in some prescriptions, blood, whereupon it would fully develop into a miniature human which would guard and protect its owner. Yet a third method, cited by Dr. David Christianus at the University of Giessen during the 18th century, was to take an egg laid by a black hen, poke a tiny hole through the shell, replace a bean-sized portion of the white with human semen, seal the opening with virgin parchment, and bury the egg in dung on the first day of the March lunar cycle. A miniature humanoid would emerge from the egg after thirty days, which would help and protect its creator in return for a steady diet of lavender seeds and earthworms. Dr Wilder Penfield used a similar image to depict the body according to the areas of the motor cortex controlling it in voluntary movement. Sometimes thought to be the brain's map of the body, the motor homunculus is really a map of the proportionate association of the cortex with body members. It also reflects kinesthetic proprioception, the body as felt in motion. It plays a central role in phantom limb phenomena and their opposite such as the disappearance of body members from conscious perception with certain types of brain damage. Like the sensory homunculus, the motor homunculus looks distorted. For example the thumb which is used in thousands of complex activities appears much larger than the thigh with its relatively simple movement. The motor homunculus develops over time and differs from one person to the next. The hand in the brain of an infant is different to the hand in the brain of a concert pianist. This kind of difference is open to introspection. You can probably flex and extend the end of your thumb at will. Most people can do this fairly easily, but relatively few can make analogous movements with any of their other fingers. The difference is due to differences in the functional organization of associated areas of the brain. The concept of a homunculus is often used to illustrate the functioning of a system. In the scientific sense of an unknowable prime actor, it can be viewed as an entity or agent. The Greeks, including Hippocrates, pondered heredity. They devised a theory of “pangenesis,” which claimed that sex involved the transfer of miniaturized body parts: “Hairs, nails, veins, arteries, tendons and their bones, albeit invisible as their particles are so small. While growing, they gradually separate from each other.” This idea enjoyed a brief renaissance when Charles Darwin, desperate to support his theory of evolution by natural selection with a viable hypothesis of inheritance, put forward a modified version of pangenesis in the second half of the nineteenth century. In Darwin's scheme, each organ—eyes, kidneys, bones—contributed circulating “gemmules” that accumulated in the sex organs and were ultimately exchanged in the course of sexual reproduction. Because these gemmules were produced throughout an organism's lifetime, Darwin argued any change that occurred in the individual after birth, like the stretch of a giraffe's neck imparted by craning for the highest foliage, could be passed on to the next generation. Ironically, then, to buttress his theory of natural selection Darwin came to champion aspects of Lamarck's theory of inheritance of acquired characteristics—the very theory that his evolutionary ideas did so much to discredit. Darwin was invoking only Lamarck's theory of inheritance; he continued to believe that natural selection was the driving force behind evolution but supposed that natural selection operated on the variation produced by pangenesis. Had Darwin known about Mendel's work (although Mendel published his results shortly after The Origin of Species appeared, Darwin was never aware of them), he might have been spared the embarrassment of this late-career endorsement of some of Lamarck's ideas. Whereas pangenesis supposed that embryos were assembled from a set of minuscule components, another approach, “preformationism,” avoided the assembly step altogether: either the egg or the sperm (exactly which was a contentious issue) contained a complete preformed individual called a homunculus. Development was therefore merely a matter of enlarging this into a fully formed being. In the days of preformationism, what we now recognize as genetic disease was variously interpreted: sometimes as a manifestation of the wrath of God or the mischief of demons and devils; sometimes as evidence of either an excess of or a deficit of the father's “seed”; sometimes as the result of “wicked thoughts” on the part of the mother during pregnancy. On the premise that fetal malformation can result when a pregnant mother's desires are thwarted, leaving her feeling stressed and frustrated, Napoleon passed a law permitting expectant mothers to shoplift. None of these notions, needless to say, did much to advance our understanding of genetic disease. Fetiform teratoma (homunculus) is a term that has been given to a rare form of teratoma that resembles a malformed fetus. There are very few reported cases in the English-language literature of this entity. Since the discovery of this well organized and highly differentiated mature cystic teratoma, there has been a lively discussion and fascination as to its etiology and pathogenicity. This tumor is difficult to distinguish from fetus in fetu (which some regard as a parasitic monozygotic twin), usually found inside the body of a newborn or infant, and an ectopic pregnancy. A Homunculus argument accounts for a phenomenon in terms of the very phenomenon that it is supposed to explain (Richard Gregory (1987)). Homunculus arguments are always fallacious. In the psychology and philosophy of mind 'homunculus arguments' are extremely useful for detecting where theories of mind fail or are incomplete. Homunculus arguments are common in the theory of vision. Imagine a person watching a movie. He sees the images as something separate from himself, projected on the screen. How is this done? A simple theory might propose that the light from the screen forms an image on the retinas in the eyes and something in the brain looks at these as if they are the screen. The Homunculus Argument shows this is not a full explanation because all that has been done is to place an entire person, or homunculus, behind the eye who gazes at the retinas. A more sophisticated argument might propose that the images on the retinas are transferred to the visual cortex where it is scanned. Again this cannot be a full explanation because all that has been done is to place a little person in the brain behind the cortex. In the theory of vision the Homunculus Argument invalidates theories that do not explain 'projection', the experience that the viewing point is separate from the things that are seen. Very few people would propose that there actually is a little man in the brain looking at brain activity. However, this proposal has been used as a 'straw man' in theories of mind. Gilbert Ryle (1949) proposed that the human mind is known by its intelligent acts. (see Ryle's Regress). He argued that if there is an inner being inside the brain that could steer its own thoughts then this would lead to an absurd repetitive cycle or "regress" before a thought could occur: it took some thought...what do you think? most of my source: Wikipedia |
|
| |
 |
| Thread Tools | |
| |
