top of page
Search

The Problem with Duplicity . . .

Click the links below to enjoy the podcast:

Megaphone with links to Apple - Google - Spotify



Welcome to the channel of Anna Perdue. Look for the link below the podcast and make sure to upload the podcast, so you can multi-task while hearing the message. You may also open the link and scroll over and select your favorite platform: Apple, Spotify or Google, then look for the channel “Anna Perdue”.


A HUGE SHOUT OUT to: James R, Michelle V, Mark Z, Leonard L, Dave O, Carolyn C, Derren J, Angela E, Karen C, Daniel B, Jolie R, and Kristin S, for your donations to the channel. If you are interested in helping this channel, you can do so by clicking the DONATION LINK found on my website at annaperdue.com. Another way to support this channel is by checking out this offer from my latest sponsor:

 

And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. - Genesis 6:5


Cloning is the process of taking the genetic material of one being and creating another with exactly the same genetic make-up. Proponents of this process claim this could not only provide infertile individuals with the opportunity to reproduce, but even “replace” people who have suffered untimely deaths. Most people; however, think that cloning should be illegal.


Clones are often thought of as being identical to each other not only in appearance, but also in the way they think and behave.

Although clones would look the same, they would each be their own person, their own individual. Not only would they be numerically distinct, but their behavior and even personalities would be completely different. Why? Because the different environments to which they are exposed would shape them all differently.


Even if they grew up in the same household, they would not be carbon copies of each other any more than two genetic twins are. In fact, that is all clones really are—artificially produced twins. Well, this kind of thinking must have been exactly what those folks carrying the half-angel half-human hybrid babies thought back in the Days of Noah. Yet, we know how that story ended. Those babies grew to be giants who practiced evil continually.


Our genes do not determine everything about us. And this shows the folly of trying to replace an individual with their clone after they have suffered an untimely death.

Another common mistake in sci-fi is thinking that clones would be “non-persons”—disposable entities without souls. This idea opens a whole new can of worms.


These transhumans would most likely be given the same status as a human being. Do these transhumans have souls? Even if they did have souls, why would being born as a clone be a necessary condition for having one? Wouldn’t having a functioning brain be the more likely candidate?

Now, we might argue that, even if clones have minds, you could create a clone of yourself for backup organs because you’re allowed to use your own body, including your DNA, as you see fit. But if you voluntarily create clones of yourself, they would have their own mind and rights. You could not own your clones any more than one twin could own another. And you would have no more right to your clone’s bodily resources than the clone would have to yours. Are you starting to see the tangled web?


Here, the issue of “zygote personhood” becomes relevant. If zygotes are considered persons, that means such research would cost millions of human lives since trial and error is required to create them, and that would mean the creation and destruction of millions of zygotes. But there are major problems with this argument. First, it is impossible to establish that zygotes actually are persons.

The argument essentially rests on a religious assumption—and religious assumptions are not held to a standard basis in modern law. Second, in vitro fertilization can also be viewed as immoral, because it usually involves discarding zygotes. And third, if zygotes are persons, research into cloning could be considered no more detrimental to human life than natural biological reproduction. This entire project removes the importance of a human being altogether.


In January 2001, a small consortium of scientists led by Panayiotis Zavos, a former University of Kentucky professor, and Italian researcher Severino Anti-nori said that they planned to clone a human in two years. That was over twenty years ago. At about the same time, news surfaced about an American couple who planned to pay $500,000 to Las Vegas-based company Clonaid for a clone of their deceased infant daughter.


The primary method scientists most likely use is somatic ce­ll nuclear transfer (SCNT), which is the same procedure that was used to create Dolly the sheep. Somatic cell nuclear transfer begins when doctors take the egg from a female donor and remove its nucleus, creating an enucleated egg.


A cell, which contains DNA, is taken from the person who is being cloned. Then the enucleated egg is fused together with the cloning subject's cell using electricity. This creates an embryo, which is implanted into a surrogate mother through in vitro fertilization.


If the procedure is successful, then the surrogate mother will give birth to a baby that's a clone of the cloning subject at the end of a normal gestation period. The success rate for this type of procedure is small, working in only one or two out of every 100 embryos.


After all, Dolly was the result of 277 previously failed attempts. Re-engineering the human reproductive process has made many people nervous that cloning crosses the ethical boundaries of science.


Clonaid is an American-based human cloning organization, registered as a company in the Bahamas. Founded in 1997, it has philosophical ties with the UFO religion Raëlism, which sees cloning as the first step in achieving immortality. On December 27, 2002, Clonaid's chief executive, Brigitte Boisselier, claimed that a baby clone, named Eve, was born.


Media coverage of the claim sparked serious criticism and ethical debate. Florida attorney Bernard Siegel tried to appoint a special guardian for Eve and threatened to sue Clonaid, because he was afraid that the child might be treated like a lab rat.


Bioethicist Clara Alto condemned Clonaid for premature human experimentation and noted the high incidence of malformations and thousands of fetal deaths in animal cloning. On May 31, 1997, an issue of the popular science magazine New Scientist said that the International Raëlian Movement was starting a company to fund the research and development of human cloning. This alarmed bioethicists who were opposed to such plans. They warned lawmakers against failing to regulate human cloning.


New research published in PLOS One provides evidence that duplicated human faces tend to elicit negative emotions in viewers. The findings serve as a warning that future robotic or cloning technology could provoke unpleasant psychological reactions.

The rapid development of humanoid technology is very exciting for some certain types of people. However, when imagining the future mass production of androids, and being surrounded by human-like entities with the same face (like Agent Smith in the Matrix),”it gets pretty creepy.


It is horrifying to think that this is what the imagined future world could+ actually look like. Previous cognitive psychological research has repeatedly shown that unfamiliar and unknown objects evoke an uncanny feeling, and the scene with all the same faces is exactly the kind of ‘unfamiliar and unknown situation’ that violates our expectations of what a real scene should be like.

In six experiments, which included over 2,100 Japanese adults, the researchers consistently found evidence that clone human faces induced a sense of eeriness and improbability. The main finding in that research was that humans have an eerie impression of people that have faces with the exact same appearance, which is named the clone devaluation effect.


“This suggests an ironic future. Even if technology is highly advanced enough to overcome the uncanny valley, if we implement a large number of mass-produced humanoid robots all over the world, as we do with today’s consumer electronics, there will be new uncanny phenomena.”


The researchers found that as the number of the clone faces in a scene increased, so did subjective ratings of eeriness. Seeing four clone faces was viewed as stranger than viewing two clone faces. But the results appear to be limited to humanoid faces. Clone dog faces were not associated with heighted eeriness ratings, possibly because humans have “difficulties in distinguishing the individual faces of other species.” In addition, clone human faces drawn in anime and cartoons images were viewed as less eerie and improbable than clone faces in photographic images.


When examining faces of famous twins. They found that the subjective eeriness of twins’ faces tended to be lower than that of clone non-twins’ faces. This could indicate that the duplication of identity, rather than just the duplication of facial features, is what induces eeriness.


Genome sequencing has been on a scientific as well as economic journey for the last three decades. The Human Genome Project began in 1990 with the aim of mapping the whole structure of the human genome and sequencing it. The bold and daring project took 13 years and an insanely huge amount of money, approximately $2.7 billion for the US government, to complete. Since then, the amount of genetic information multiplied.

New Genomics companies combined with Artificial Intelligence use deep learning to mine vast amounts of genetic information and combine the potential in AI and genetics for research. Verily Life Sciences, formerly known as Google Life Sciences was founded in 2015 under the auspices of the umbrella corporation, Alphabet. It is working on its genetic data-collecting initiative, the Baseline Study. It aims to use some of the same algorithms that power Google’s famous search button in order to analyze humans.


In January 2017, the company received $800 million investment from a Singapore-based investment company, Temasek to continue its research. Verily also works on projects like the DeepVariant to run the DeepVariant germline variant calling algorithm on human whole genome sequencing data powered by the Google Cloud Platform. But the latest craze in scientific strides for genome studies is in the CRISPR Gene Therapy Application.


CRISPR/Cas9 is a simple two-component system used for effective targeted gene editing. The first component is the single-effector Cas9 protein, which contains the endonuclease domains that generate double-stranded breaks in the target DNA. The second component of effective targeted gene editing is a single guide RNA that guides the CRISPR/Cas9 complex to its intended genomic location.


This pathway involves using the region of the unedited DNA strand as a template to correct the damaged DNA, resulting in error-free repair. This pathway can be exploited by providing a donor template with the CRISPR/Cas9 machinery to facilitate the desired edit into the genome.


CRISPR/Cas9 provides for programmable gene editing and can become a powerful tool for modern pharmakia and transhumanism. A concern remains whether normalizing CRISPR/Cas9 editing may act as a gateway for human genome editing for non-medical purposes, such as altering genes in embryos to create offspring with certain aesthetic traits. This fear of unnatural selection for unethical reasons has garnered strong media attention of the edited “CRISPR babies.” Just like the days of Noah.


In 2013, the US supreme court ruled that human genes cannot be patented. The Court called DNA a product of nature.


JUSTICE THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court. Respondent Myriad Genetics, Inc. discovered the precise location and sequence of two human genes, mutations of which can substantially increase the risks of breast and ovarian cancer. Myriad obtained a number of patents based upon its discovery.


This case involves claims from three of them and requires us to resolve whether a naturally occurring segment of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is patent eligible by virtue of its isolation from the rest of the human genome. We also address the patent eligibility of synthetically created DNA known as complementary DNA (cDNA), which contains the same protein-coding information found in a segment of natural DNA but omits portions within the DNA segment that do not code for proteins.


For the reasons that follow, we hold that a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated, but that cDNA is patent eligible because it is not naturally occurring.


Genome-editing technologies based on programmable nucleases have significantly changed the ability to make precise and direct changes in the genomic DNA of various species, including human cells. In vitro-transcribed mRNA-mediated delivery of nucleases alters the genomic DNA with efficient in vivo and in vitro delivery, allowing no genomic integration, and high editing efficiency. In other words, this Genome editing technology most certainly fits in the category of what is considered patentable since like cDNA; it is not naturally occurring, as cited in the 2013 Supreme Court Ruling.


As gene-based mRNA injectable poisons are being designed and tested at warp speeds to fight bioweapons inflicted on citizens, this is also bringing the debate over transhumanism into the forefront.


Transhumanism is a type of futurist philosophy aimed at transforming the human species by means of biotechnologies. Transhumanists see disease, aging and death as undesirable and unnecessary, and aim to transform human beings into patentable post-human species with greater capacities than those of present human beings.


The philosophy is based on secular humanism and sees human nature as an evolutionary work-in-progress with room for improvement and enhancement. However, it is more radical in that it promotes not only traditional means of improving human nature such as education and cultural refinement, but also direct application of medicine and technology to overcome basic natural biological limits.


The plan is to harness a new technology that synthesizes messenger RNA, or mRNA—which is an instruction manual in every living cell for creating protein—to prompt the human body to make its own medicine. So instead of injecting a piece of virus into a person to stimulate the immune system, the synthesized genes would be shot into the body whereby the genes are edited, deleted, added, to re-engineer human DNA to resist the disease.


Indeed, DARPA is also developing other forms of human enhancement in addition to gene editing. Already scientists are merging robotics with the human body in brain-to-computer interface, wherein individuals with physical injuries can regain their functions, and soldiers become smarter and more powerful through the fusing of their brain with machines.


In a way, the Pentagon is now building real iron man similar to the American superhero based on the Marvel Comics character. Soldiers in exoskeleton suits are physically more powerful than those without, while other soldiers with bionic limbs perform better than adversaries with human limbs. When one adds artificial intelligence with BCI, the sky is the limit for an army of these genetically modified and robotically enhanced humanoids.


Meanwhile, a team of scientists from the University of California, Riverside are researching ways to turn your GROCERIES into mRNA highways. In order to combat “the hesitancy group”, these scientists want to distribute spike proteins throughout the food supply.


This experiment could give rise to a new paradigm of tyranny that gives Big Pharmakia total control over the food supply, as they venture to genetically alter food to inundate the population with more blood clotting spike proteins. Is this the reason why GMO/investor “Gates from hell” is buying up farmland across the United States? Will all current and future mRNA experiments be carried out through the food supply?

“Ideally, a single plant would produce enough mRNA to make a single person a patentable specimen,” according to Juan Pablo Giraldo, lead researcher and associate professor in UCR’s Department of Botany and Plant Sciences.


The future of bio-warfare and human experimentation will likely be carried out through the food supply, and advertised as safe. By altering the cytoplasm of edible plants, scientists hope to introduce foreign spike protein toxins into your food. These DNA altering-pimping scientists are already experimenting on lettuce and spinach plants, to develop a new species of greens that can poison people more often and in a less invasive manner.


These new designer greens can be grown at home, too. The scientists are working on a way to quantify the correct dosage of spike protein per plant while demonstrating that the plant can replicate enough mRNA to out-perform the current mandated supply.


Matthew 24: 37 and 24:22 Reminds us that this evil is almost over. But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. The days of Noah are here. They were practicing Transhumanism then, and now they are doing it again. We are about to roll up our tents and go Home! And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

Sources:

Look for the podcast feed at this link: https://cms.megaphone.fm/channel/annaperdue

VERY IMPORTANT TO SIGN UP ON THESE FORUMS & SUBSCRIBE TO Anna Perdue CHANNEL:

Google Podcast:

131 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All
bottom of page