Babies From Skin Cells

[Emiliano]

From what I understand how that process could work still needs a man. I'm gonna quote from wikipedia, since it's most accessible:





And even more clearly:




Yes. You can make sperm created from female cells, but in order to do that you need male testicles. So, my argument stands. Men can make either male or female babies. Women can't make anything without men, as it turns out. Our ancient ancestors weren't that far off, women are just carriers for fetuses, that's all.

I honestly can't tell if you're fucking with me or not.

Did you read the article posted? This is a new, as of yet never preformed on humans technique. IVG. So your Wikipedia articles about other previous techniques doesn't mean anything in relation to this one.

I'm not saying I know more about how human cells or whatever than you. I'm just pointing out what is said in the article about how it works. If you disagree with the science then bring it up with the scientists who are testing it on mice or the reporter who wrote the article. Because as far as I can tell from reading what is described in that article, it's them -not me - that's killing your freaky deaky boner for a world without women.

[Emiliano]

From what I understand how that process could work still needs a man. I'm gonna quote from wikipedia, since it's most accessible:





And even more clearly:




Yes. You can make sperm created from female cells, but in order to do that you need male testicles. So, my argument stands. Men can make either male or female babies. Women can't make anything without men, as it turns out. Our ancient ancestors weren't that far off, women are just carriers for fetuses, that's all.

One significant technical hurdle that researchers were able to overcome was the difficulty of obtaining both eggs and sperm from female and male mice.14 Given that females lack a Y chromosome,15 and that germ cells go down the route of producing ova unless signals from the testes direct the cells to become sperm,16 the process of producing sperm from females is more complicated than deriving oocytes from males.17Yet scientists have been able to derive primitive sperm cells from female human ESCs.

https://academic.oup.com/jlb/article/3/1...-to-have-a (what seems to be a legit scientific article that is actually about this specific technology)





I'll also add that you and I do not share the same ancient ancestors or culture, unless we are talking some early human stuff here. So just because your ancestors treated their women like shit, does not mean it is a shared universal history.

[meridannight]

Did you read the article posted? This is a new, as of yet never preformed on humans technique. IVG. So your Wikipedia articles about other previous techniques doesn't mean anything in relation to this one.

I don't see anything in the original link or the link you posted that says female cells can be made to differentiate into sperm without some male-derived intermediary (testicles is just one option, male bone marrow is another that has been used for such purposes) for the whole process.

I'd like to see the process how female cells can be made into male cells without possessing the genetic information for making them. If that's possible then point me to the source that explains this.

All I see in your quoted sources is this:

Given that females lack a Y chromosome,15 and that germ cells go down the route of producing ova unless signals from the testes direct the cells to become sperm,16 the process of producing sperm from females is more complicated than deriving oocytes from males.17Yet scientists have been able to derive primitive sperm cells from female human ESCs.18

Then they contradict themselves in the same paragraph:

Finally, scientists have been able to produce viable offspring using in vitro gametes from either female or male mice.19 Thus far, however, this has not been achieved using only in vitro gametes, as opposed to one in vitro gamete fertilized with a ‘naturally’ produced gamete.20

I went and pulled the sources for that article you linked. One of the sources (Karim Nayernia et al) was retracted for plagiarism:


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19583494

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090730/f...9.753.html

Which explains this:

The article reported that sperm precursor cells could be derived from human embryonic stem cells in vitro. These derived cells were able to divide and generate cells with just one set of chromosomes, characteristic of sperm. Although the text of the article modestly refers to these as "sperm-like cells" with "tail-like structures", its title, and the press release which accompanied its publication, refer baldly to human sperm.

"That raised hackles," says Moore. "With that claim the authors opened themselves to criticism, some of it unfair, because the paper did not in fact show that sperm had been derived."

And another source for your article (Debra J. H. Matthews) says this:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5226919/

Finally, critical to the policy discussion is what is not likely in the future of the science. That is, there has been discussion, in the press and in public and government deliberations, of the possibility of using PSC-derived gametes in same-sex reproduction. For example, if a gay female couple wanted to have a child that was genetically related to both partners, it has been said that this technology would enable sperm to be derived from one partner, which would then be used to fertilize the egg of the other partner using in vitro fertilization techniques. This scenario and its parallel in gay males, though headline grabbing, faces significant if not insurmountable scientific barriers.

In brief, due to the complexity of the human egg and because it must contain all of the resources necessary to develop into an embryo, it will be very difficult to derive eggs that could be used for reproduction from XY (chromosomally male) cells, especially eggs able to give chromosomally normal offspring.

The converse, deriving competent sperm from XX (chromosomally female) cells, faces so many scientific challenges—in particular, the fact that at least some of the genes critical for sperm formation are located on the Y chromosome—that it is difficult to envision how it would be possible given the current state of knowledge.

Additionally, technology that has achieved this (i.e. making sperm from female cells) has always used a medium from the male body to induce spermatogenesis of female cells*:

Scientists from the University of Newcastle upon Tyne led by biologist Karim Nayernia discovered a method of creating partly developed sperm cells, otherwise known as "spermatogonial" stem cells, from the bone marrow of male volunteers, entirely in-vitro (outside the human body), and is seeking funding to see whether such techniques can be used to make female sperm.[7]

''Partly developed sperm cells''. What is that? Almost a sperm cell? As the article from Nature explained above, it looks like we are talking about sperm precursor cells here, not actual sperm.

This is the same Karim Nayernia whose research was used to write the article you linked. And his research uses male bone marrow to induce female cells to develop into sperm precursor cells!!



What part of this is not understood to you that you cannot make sperm out of female cells alone. It is not biologically possible, since female genes do not possess the information to make sperm. You can induce embryonic stem cells acquired from female cells to differentiate into sperm, but only -- and only IF those cells are exposed to a medium from the male body capable of initiating such a cell differentiation.

I don't mean to be harsh to you, but you have not understood this science correctly. To be fair, the article you quoted didn't offer any actual explanation either.


You need men to create sperm, whether you create that sperm in vivo or in vitro. If you have actual proof to the contrary I am all interested in seeing it. But I know that's not gonna surface anywhere.




*The wikipedia quote is pulled from here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_spe...conversion

[meridannight]

I'll also add that you and I do not share the same ancient ancestors or culture, unless we are talking some early human stuff here. So just because your ancestors treated their women like shit, does not mean it is a shared universal history.

I was referring to early primitive ancestors and cultures.

[kindy64]

I was referring to early primitive ancestors and cultures.

Oh, you mean, pre-internet!

[kindy64]

Females are only needed for carrying the term (unless we engineer to bypass that as well).

It's getting there, although it's all relatively new techniques. The following is meant for premature births, but I'm sure it's just a hop, skip, and a jump to full blown vat-grown people.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/25/15421...erm-infant

[Emiliano]

I don't see anything in the original link or the link you posted that says female cells can be made to differentiate into sperm without some male-derived intermediary (testicles is just one option, male bone marrow is another that has been used for such purposes) for the whole process.

I'd like to see the process how female cells can be made into male cells without possessing the genetic information for making them. If that's possible then point me to the source that explains this.

All I see in your quoted sources is this:



Then they contradict themselves in the same paragraph:




I went and pulled the sources for that article you linked. One of the sources (Karim Nayernia et al) was retracted for plagiarism:


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19583494

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090730/f...9.753.html

Which explains this:



And another source for your article (Debra J. H. Matthews) says this:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5226919/








Additionally, technology that has achieved this (i.e. making sperm from female cells) has always used a medium from the male body to induce spermatogenesis of female cells*:



''Partly developed sperm cells''. What is that? Almost a sperm cell? As the article from Nature explained above, it looks like we are talking about sperm precursor cells here, not actual sperm.

This is the same Karim Nayernia whose research was used to write the article you linked. And his research uses male bone marrow to induce female cells to develop into sperm precursor cells!!



What part of this is not understood to you that you cannot make sperm out of female cells alone. It is not biologically possible, since female genes do not possess the information to make sperm. You can induce embryonic stem cells acquired from female cells to differentiate into sperm, but only -- and only IF those cells are exposed to a medium from the male body capable of initiating such a cell differentiation.

I don't mean to be harsh to you, but you have not understood this science correctly. To be fair, the article you quoted didn't offer any actual explanation either.


You need men to create sperm, whether you create that sperm in vivo or in vitro. If you have actual proof to the contrary I am all interested in seeing it. But I know that's not gonna surface anywhere.




*The wikipedia quote is pulled from here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_spe...conversion

Ok, I owe you an apology then. I appreciate you having the patience breaking all that down for me, I have no deep knowledge of cells and genes and all that, I see how I was misunderstanding the information as it was presented. When they are telling me that they can create both sperm and eggs from female and male stem cells, I was understanding that they were saying they can do that from female and male stem cells alone. I should have trusted your first explanation because just from the what book are you reading thread, I know you do educate yourself on those topics.

But kind of similarly to how learning more about Jack Donovan's personal beliefs shaped how you feel about what information he's giving, knowing you're a self proclaimed misogynist shapes how I take in the info you give me, because I really dislike your interpretation of how this technology could be used to accentuate what I consider some of the worst traits of humanity rather than the (questionable) potential it could have to benefit humanity. So that's the part I won't apologize about.

But I do honestly appreciate you setting me straight on the science itself.

[meridannight]

[MENTION=21558]Emiliano[/MENTION], no worries man. I don't claim to know everything. Science is a complex field and even though my knowledge is quite good it doesn't mean I'm always right. That's why I checked the sources before putting it more definitively.


And, fair enough, on the other part.