'Predecessor' Neurons to Human Brain Discovered 218
Yale researchers claim to have found the very first neurons in what eventually becomes the human brain. Developed before most anything else, these neurons are in place just 31 days after fertilization. From the article: "We hypothesize that these predecessor neurons may be a transient population involved in determining the number of functional radial units including the human specific regions of the cerebral cortex mediating higher cognitive functions," Rakic said. "As a next step it is essential to determine their neural stem cell lineage, pattern of gene expression, developmental role and eventual fate."
Article failed to mention (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Article failed to mention (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Article failed to mention (Score:2)
Is that earth years?
I see... (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, wow. That's actually pretty clear! It's actually all written right there. I suppose it was a real head-smacking time down at the lab when this statement came down the line, being so obvious.
Re:I see... (Score:2)
Re:I see... (Score:2, Funny)
Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. (Score:4, Insightful)
This discovery means nothing in this debate, because the basic concept of what constitutes life (potential life versus viable life) is not affected. Sure, some pro life groups may choose to add this to their stable of propaganda, but it probably isn't going to change the debate in any meaningful way.
Because I'm a Roman Catholic... (Score:3, Insightful)
If the souls of aborted babies go to heaven, then shoudn't the christians ENCOURAGE abortion as much as possible? Especially in athiests? I mean, saving the child's soul is the most important thing, right? What kind of loving parent would allow the child's soul to come in danger of eternal torment, when salvation is just an abortion away?
Re:Because I'm a Roman Catholic... (Score:4, Interesting)
Sarcasm doesn't work to point out the goofiness of religion when you get the premise wrong. The Catholic Church says, quite literally, "We don't know what happens to unbaptised babies who die... we just assume God does the right thing".
As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"[63] allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism.
Source: Some official Church thing circa 1992 [columbia.edu]. John Paul II said something very similar later on in one of his little letters on abortion.
As I understand it... the Church basically admits, on this particular issue, that God may "let" people into heaven through ways "unknown" to the Church. This concept intruiges me.
Re:Because I'm a Roman Catholic... (Score:2)
Re:Because I'm a Roman Catholic... (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Because I'm a Roman Catholic... (Score:3, Informative)
Unbaptized children don't have justifying grace (which is normally received through baptism), and so they shouldn't be able to go to heaven. On the other hand, they haven't personally sinned, so they shouldn't go to hell either. One theory that attem
Re:Because I'm a Roman Catholic... (Score:2)
Re:Because I'm a Roman Catholic... (Score:2)
Acts 10:10-16
And he became hungry and desired something to eat; but while they were preparing it, he fell into a trance and saw the heaven opened, and something descending, like a great sheet, let down by four corners upon the earth. In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air.
And there came a voice to him, "Rise, Peter; kill and eat."
But Peter said, "No, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean."
And the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Because I'm a Roman Catholic... (Score:2)
It's funny how the Church seems to know exactly what God is thinking when it comes to homosexuals and transgendered people and pre-marital sex and all that jazz, but when it turns the subject of babies they're suddenly too humble to speculate.
is either clueless or humorless or all the above. If I had mod points I'd rectify the situation. On the other hand, maybe Slashdot DOES has readers in the Bible belt. Let me test this. Hey -- any of you all married your siste
Re:Because I'm a Roman Catholic... (Score:2)
Re:Because I'm a Roman Catholic... (Score:2)
Re:Because I'm a Roman Catholic... (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually, the Bible says that, in Apostolic times, entire families were baptized, not just adults.
Acts 16:15
And when she was baptized, and her household...
Acts 16:33
And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and
Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. (Score:3, Insightful)
That is an interesting perspective. As science progresses, the set of all life which is "viable outside of the womb" is going to eventually be equal to the set of all "potential for becoming lif
Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. (Score:3, Interesting)
Not likely, since a lot of that early stuff isn't even viable inside the womb. This is a point that "pro-life" folk tend to ignore. The fact is, most fertilized ova don't even properly implant in the womb, and of those that do many don't make it much past the first month, for purely natural reasons -- including cases where there was never an embry
Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. (Score:2)
In other words: the cells in question aren't actually linked to anything.
OTOH, various anti-abortion groups have a tendancy to pick and choose their facts.
I expect some modified form of these findings will quickly begin making the e-mail circuit and it'll becomes 'common' knowledge (amongst the activists) that babies have "brains" 31 days after fertilization.
I find it unfortunate that they often end up usi
Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. (Score:2)
My main point in responding is to correct the idea that pro-choicers draw a line at viability -- there are many abortions performed after viability and that is in line w
Clarification (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm pro-choice.
Life begins before conception.
It is continued through conception, and lasts onward through birth.
Before about the sixth month, a human baby will not be able to
develop a fully functional brain if removed from the uterus.
Up until that point, I feel that if a woman doesn't feel they can
raise a child properly, they should have the right to stop their
pregnancy in a method safe for themselves. It's
Re:Clarification (Score:2)
Why? Simply put, because fanatical pro-lifer types aren't very technically inclined. I am sure that most of them think of the Internet as a series of tubes and is probably easily offended by daily "Internets" to their inboxes advertising viagra.
Seriously though, I've spoken with many pro-lifers. My experience suggests that pro-lifers generally have a low IQ (sub 100). They are fanatical about their beliefs and their opinions.
Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. (Score:1)
Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. (Score:2)
Gosh. I've never heard of such a thing. Is there some sort of disagreement which turns up once in a while on slashdot?
Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. (Score:3, Insightful)
I am pro-life, but I think that the right to life comes with self-awareness. It is pretty clear that unborn children have developed fairly complex mental activity well within the range within which abortion is allowed in most countries.
On the other had I know pro-abortion people who are definitely not in favour of abortion up to birth.
Incidentally abortion is many countries is allowed for babys who would be viable outside the womb - the limit in the U
Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. (Score:2)
That's the root of it. But the "talking past each other" extends further. Stemming largely from their belief that life (or really, personhood) begins at or near conception, the pro-life side believ
Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. (Score:2, Funny)
Personally, I'm all for legislation that legalizes retroactive abortions, up to about age 23 or so... And should such a law come to pass I already have a list of several deserving candidates!
Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. (Score:3, Insightful)
no doubt the term "pro-life" is a joke. "pro-choice" is a joke as well. just how many "pro-choice"-ers will be in favor of gay marriage for example? probably more than the other side but nowhere near 100%. pro-choice is in favor of choice for the things they'd like to choose. pro-choice me
Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. (Score:2)
Uh, I know damned well I ain't fucking her at all. Simpletons, disease vectors and oopses-waiting-to-happen are NOT allowed in my pants without appropriate protective gear, and only rarely then.
Ah, clearly she grabbed your (the "royal" your) little head in a testosterone Vise-Grip (tm),
Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. (Score:1)
You have a huge hurdle to overcome. How do you accuse the pro-lifers of trying to push their religious beliefs on other people if they are using science to justify their position?
LK
Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. (Score:5, Interesting)
Right below the post about people "talking passed each other", and you come up with the perfect example of it. I'm not religious, and I'm not really pro-life (I am one of the 9 people in this country who is neither pro-life nor pro-choice... I consider myself a populist on this particular subject.) Religious people aren't "pushing their beliefs on you". That's a fear-mongering tactic used by one side. That's basically equal to asking if you like killing babies. The fundamental question is when does life begin. That's a question that every society must answer. Everyone agrees that killing a person is wrong. The question becomes.. when does society agree that this is, in fact, a person. Pretending pro-life is about a bunch of religious zealots trying to push their religion on you completely and utterly misses the point. It's bordering on an ad hominem fallacy, to be sure.
This is no more about religious belief as it is about believing in freedom. Everyone believes you should be free to do with your body what you want, and everyone believes that murder should be wrong. The disagreement is when does "your body" become "their body". If you think you have an answer to that question, that defines which side of the line you are on. Adding any of the rest of this tagentially related strawmen (you hate women! you murder babies! religious freak! promiscious whore!) to the picture just inflames the situation and destroys conversation.
Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. (Score:2, Interesting)
IMHO, humans managed to answer that question a long time ago. Life began millenia ago, and, assuming that you believe Darwin knew what he was talking about, it is our obligation as a species to continue the propogation of life. When you take this kind of view, you arrive at the conclusion that not only is abortion "killing babies," but so is everything from effective use of condoms, birth control, and yes
Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. (Score:2, Insightful)
Measures that contain sperm, such as abstinence or condom use, extend the life of existing organisms because they ensure that new life does not compete for resources that could b
Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. (Score:2)
I bet the inventor of compact flourescent lightbulbs had a net positive effect on the environment.
If some engineer made front-loading washers cheap enough for them to catch on in a big way, that'd save trillions of gallons of water a year.
Sadly, you don't see many environmentalists going into hard science.
Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. (Score:2, Insightful)
So although I disagree with pro-lifers, I can at least und
Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. (Score:2)
Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. (Score:2)
Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. (Score:2, Troll)
No, everyone does not agree. In an ironic twist, many so-called pro-lifers enthusiastically support capital punishment. Otherwise, a rare display of calm and rational thinking in this debate. Thank you, lbrandy.
Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. (Score:2)
Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. (Score:2)
A pro-lifer/pro-death penalty type does consider a fetus a person and does consider a murderer a person and yet thinks abortion is wrong but capital punishment is good. This is also consistent, they believe that only "bad" people should be ki
Guilt (Score:2)
That's because a felon on death row is guilty of sin ("thou shalt not commit murder"), while the unborn baby girl inside her mother is not.
Re:Guilt (Score:2)
Romans 3:23 - for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
No exceptions, not even for a newborn babe. All. Not even one. Pretty clear on this subject.
Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. (Score:2)
Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. (Score:2)
Ok, so let us assume you are on neither side of the line, so you don't think you have an answer to that question. So you admit that both sides may be wr
Premature birth is evidence (Score:2)
So until what week would you claim that a fetus (Latin for "unborn child") "isn't alive"? To set an outer limit, starting at about week 26, the baby is obviously alive because it can be born and nursed to health in a neonatal ICU.
Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. (Score:2)
Causation is questionable. But the correlation is obvious. To claim that it isn't about religious belief is even less defensible than claiming that it is. There clearly IS a relationship of some kind. And regardless of whether you agree that it's
Well Posedness (Score:2)
That question isn't well posed. Eggs are alive. Sperm are alive. Zygotes and embryos and fetuses and infants are all alive. A better question needs to be asked.
The disagreement is when does "your body" become "their body"
I view it as a disagreement over whether the state can force you to give birth or not. The only reason this has become such an issue in recent human history is because, for the first time, the state has taken an active interest in abortion. S
Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. (Score:2)
Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. (Score:4, Interesting)
No, no, no.
Most human societies throughout most of history have had accepted practices for getting rid of unwanted children. These practices usually involved some form of infanticide [wikipedia.org]. Almost everyone almost everywhere agrees that the practice of killing infants is sometimes justified. The Jews were notable exceptions in the ancient world, and were considered weird by the Romans because of it.
So let's not start the debate with trivial falsehoods.
Nor has there ever been any doubt about or question about when "life begins" in societies that practice infanticide. The modern Indian or Chinese peasents who allow female children to die are not in any doubt as to the fact that their children are alive! What they are in doubt about is how valuable those lives are. That has been the fundamental question in most human societies throughout most of history.
Nor is it the case that "everyone agrees that killing a person is wrong." The obvious counter-example, alluded to in other replies, are advocates of capital punishment.
Stripped on the lies and dishonesty that colour the picture on both sides of the fence, the question regarding abortion is this: Should a mother be allowed by society to choose to end her child's life in early pregnancy? I believe any humane invidual who is aware of the social realities will eventually realize that the answer to this question is clearly, yes. Killing an unwanted child is not a good thing. But giving birth to an unwanted child is a far, far greater evil. And taking the choice away from the adult whose life and body are most greatly affected by the decision, and who can reasonably be assumed to have the child's well-being more strongly in her mind than anyone else, is the greatest evil of all.
But so long as the debate is clouded by irrelevant non-questions like, "Is a zygote alive?" there will be no resolution. Of course a zygote is alive. Only an idiot would suggest otherwise. Every single cell in our bodies is alive, and with sufficient technological intervention it is quite likely that some day every single one of them will be a "potential human being." So long as the debate centres around this kind of nonsense rather than the real question of how or whether to practice infanticide in the modern world, it will just be a lot of pointless noise.
No child is unwanted (Score:2)
No child is unwanted. There are thousands of couples who are waiting to adopt your baby; what they lack in fertility they have in loving kindness.
Re:No child is unwanted (Score:2)
So if you were born to a black crack whore, your chances of ge
In Error (Score:2)
Its hair splitting based on beliefs. The way the republic is supposed to work is that disputed beliefs are not imposed on others.
Both sides of the argument are NOT the same. One actually IMPOSES on you legal definitions which as a result takes away freedoms; the other does not, because you can't impose freedom by definition.
If you can't eat pork because its sacril
Beef contaminated with pork (Score:2)
What if almost every widely available brand of beef is contaminated with pork byproducts due to being hung on the same meat hooks? I'm just glad that there's one brand that still "answer[s] to a higher authority" [wikipedia.org].
Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. (Score:2)
Adoption is a delegation of responsibility, not an abdication of responsibility. It would not be legal to hand over a child to be killed, it must be given to someone who will provide due care and protection. The responsibility to look after the child is intact but de
Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. (Score:2)
My point is that she cannot leave it out to die, for example. It has to be given by her into appropriate care. Even if she is giving it to the state on the understanding that they will care/find a carer, it is totally different to not taking responsibility, it is delegating responsibility (in this case, to the state). The fact that during pregnancy it is
Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. (Score:2)
The 'looking after a child' is not an analogy, it's an example of how we legally see a mother's responsibility. Precedent if you will. It is generally accepted that the parent's responsibility is reduced as the childs age/capabil
Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. (Score:2)
Not at all. Killing some-one is illegal in most circumstances, but there are exceptions eg: self-defence, police shooting some-one firing a gun at others etc. To think that there may be circumstances when abortion should
Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. (Score:2)
The examples you gave are analogies. It would seem that the primary purpose of a womb is to incubate children. There is no organ in the body that has organ donation as it's primary purpose, therefore, it is reasonable for people to be able to use their organs for their primary purpose, and not reason
Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. (Score:2)
It shows that talking about purpose does not stop it being a legal discussion. You said I had switched from talking about legal responsibility to talking about purpose. Just showing you a legal document that contains the word purpose. It shows that the word purpose does not mean that I'm not talking abou
Narrow minded people? (Score:2)
It's the ignorance (yet again) and the thougth "its the best thing to do for everyone" although such thinking leads to both more use in cigarettes and alcohol because it IS legal: it
Re:Expect abortion opponents to jump on this. (Score:2)
Substrates (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Substrates (Score:3, Interesting)
Speaking as a genius plus, intelligence isn't nearly as useful as people make it out to be. Sure, it helps, but it can also screw you good.
For instance, you tend to see things as obvious which aren't to most people, so you don't explain as much. Figuring out what needs extra exposition is actually hard. Conversely, school before college is so boring and slow that you may have trouble staying awake. Psychologically, you may get an attitude because you know more than others, or you may hole yourself up in so
Re:Substrates (Score:2)
Even for a genius plus?
Re:Substrates (Score:2)
Re:Substrates (Score:2)
I just think it must be at least theoretically possible, since I've know people with what seem to be remarkable predispositions for certain intellectual specializations, like math or physics. When I read your earlier comment, I wondered if it might not be possible for someone to possess an intellectual predisposition for knowing what's easy and hard for ot
Re:Substrates (Score:2)
Is it possible that a genius might exist such that their developed ability would be to easily figure out what's easy and what's hard for someone else?
Sure, that's even probable, but we don't measure for that when doing IQ tests.
Re:Substrates (Score:2)
That sounds like a job for a genius
Re:Substrates (Score:2)
I think there's definitely an ability to communicate effectively. It's probably partly innate, partly cultivated.
Re:Substrates (Score:2)
Re:Substrates (Score:2)
Re:Substrates (Score:2)
On long time scales (1000+ years), unless we're stupid enough to kill all of ourselves, genetic programming is inevitable. Just say it takes centuries to become reliable and palatable enough to take root. Once the knowledge and ability is prese
Re:Substrates (Score:2)
How can you not want your kid to posess superior intellect [khaaan.com]
Re:Substrates (Score:2)
Not to worry. With the way the powers that be [nea.org] seem to be bent on lowering school standards [newswithviews.com], you just might be called on to "de-enhance" [wikipedia.org] your kid, instead.
science, or fiction? (Score:5, Funny)
The human brain isn't made out of neurons. It is not something you just dump something on. It's not a truck. It's a series of tubes. And if you don't understand those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and its going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material.
Re:science, or fiction? (Score:1)
Re:science, or fiction? (Score:2)
Do you have sources for that? I had assumed our knowledge on how data was stored and processed in our brain was so limited that any calculation of its power were wild guesses. Sure, we can count the number of brain cells and connections, but we do not know how much information is stored there. The idea of a quantum [wikipedia.org] brain [wikipedia.org] for example may not be very likely, but neither has anyone been a
Re:science, or fiction? (Score:2, Informative)
I remember reading something similiar ages ago, though the projected date was somewhere between 2020 and 2025, allowing for variances in the actual rate of progess before a desktop-grade PC would reach the roughly 1 billion billion ops/sec @ 1 petabyte storage that was the stated theoretical digita
Great answer! (Score:2)
Mod me up! (Score:2)
I agree. They seem to be lazy today. Could be the heat, I guess. But aren't there some moderators Iceland? They could mod you up.
Yale's Research Development Team (Score:2)
University press releases are scams (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:University press releases are scams (Score:2)
Boot loader? (Score:2)
Is that a fancy way of saying the neurons are a boot loader?
Fascinating (Score:2)
Misleading Article Title (Score:2)
image certainly has nothing to do with thinking; It clearly has very little if any
dendrites, although it does have a clearly definable axon, and thus this is a unipolar
neuron, already known to exist in embryonic tissue!
Neuron types [neuromedia.ca]
It doesn't article seem to be very groundbreaking work, however it does seem to jive well
with the function of the Cajal-Retzius cells found in Layer 1 of the cerebral cortex. It is
probable that these ce
The intergalactic expressway is coming!! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:thought this was mapped already?, YES! (Score:5, Informative)
When your blood alcohol comes down you'll probably realise that you're not going to find much likeness regarding brain development between humans and C. Elegans. Because they don't have much of a brain... in fact they're lacking circulatory and respiratory systems as well.
WRONG. Maybe worms don't have a "brain" as we know it, but they are a very good model for nervous systems. Nearly 1/3 of the cells of C. elegans worms are neurons, and the entire lineage of every cell in the adult worm is well mapped. Worms are a good animal model system, and combined with research from flies (Drosophila) and mice, much is known about neural development. Since we are humans, clearly, we are often most interested specifically in what is know about our own development. So the Yale study, while not entirely novel, certainly is an important study in a long line of great research to help us understand the development and wiring of the brain.
Re:thought this was mapped already?, YES! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:thought this was mapped already? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:thought this was mapped already? (Score:2)
Re:wehufihue (Score:2)