Category Archives: Post Human

In my last post, I wrote about insulin and interesting features of the insulin structure. Some of the things I learned were really surprising. For example, I was surprised to learnhow similar pig and human insulin are. I hadnt considered this before, but this made me wonder about the human insulin we used to give to one of our cats. How docat and human insulin compare?

It turns out, that all vertebrates produce insulin, even frogs and zebra fish. Human preproinsulin is only 110 amino acids long and evenhuman and fish insulin are pretty similar. Of course, this observation only leads to more questions. Like why? Why would fish insulin and human insulin be similar at all?

One clue comes from insulins function. Many cells require insulin for growth. Another clue comes from the insulin structure. A key feature of the insulin protein is apair of disulfide bonds that hold the two chains (A and B) together.

Disulfide bonds between chains A and B in human insulin, PDB ID 1TRZ

Continued here:
Insulin, sugar, and evolution [Discovering Biology in a Digital World]

Crysis: 3 Gameplay EPISODE: 1 "Post - Human
Mission: Post-Human Next Episode: http://youtu.be/EJeQVU1xpD8.

By: ethanlapis

Read more from the original source:
Crysis: 3 Gameplay EPISODE: 1 "Post - Human - Video

Crysis 3 Final Mission No Deaths on Post Human Warrior

By: Quamatech

Go here to read the rest:
Crysis 3 Final Mission No Deaths on Post Human Warrior - Video

An orangutan named Sandra has become the first non-human animal recognized as a person in a court of law.

The Association of Officials and Lawyers for Animal Rights, an animal advocacy group, had asked Argentine courts recognize the 28-year-old great apes right to freedom from unjust imprisonment.

On Friday, an appeals court declared that Sandra, who is owned by the Buenos Aires Zoo, is a non-human person who has been wrongfully deprived of her freedom.

Sandra, who was born in German zoo and sent to Argentina two decades ago, at an age when wild orangutans are still living at their mothers side, wont be given complete freedom.

Having lived her entire life in captivity, Sandra likely could not survive in the wild. Instead, if the zoo does not challenge the decision within 10 working days, Sandra will be sent to a sanctuary in Brazil.

This opens the way not only for other Great Apes, but also for other sentient beings which are unfairly and arbitrarily deprived of their liberty in zoos, circuses, water parks and scientific laboratories, said lawyer Paul Buompadre, one of the activists who filed the suit, to the La Nacion newspaper.

The decision may have ramifications for other great apes. In the United States, a group called the Nonhuman Rights Project is currently seeking similar rights for four privately-owned chimpanzees in New York state.

According to the Nonhuman Rights Project, chimpanzees deserve rightsnot full human rights, but at least a few basic onesbecause they are so similar to humans.

Theyve so far been unsuccessful. Their latest court defeat came in early December, when a New York appeals court argued that, regardless of their intelligence or feelings, chimpanzees cant fulfill the social obligations expected of anyone with rights.

The Argentine court, however, made no mention of social duties. Sandra is simply enough like a human person to be considered a person, they ruled.

Originally posted here:
An Orangutan Has (Some) Human Rights, Argentine Court Rules

Lets continue with the discussion I started in yesterdays post.

We are considering whether it is reasonable to persist in believing in the reality of Adam and Eve given the findings of modern science. The problem is that the Bible seems clear that at the time of their creation, Adam and Eve were the only human beings on the planet. But genetic analyses contradict this, pointing instead to the conclusion that the human population has never dipped below two thousand, at an absolute minimum.

There are two broad strategies for avoiding this conflict: Deny the genetic evidence or deny that Adam and Eve were the only two humans at the time of their creation. Dennis Bonnette takes the first approach in this article for Crisis magazine, and that is what we discussed yesterday. He made a number of claims about the genetic evidence that I suspect are dubious, but which I lack the expertise to refute. I did, however, offer the more general objection that in the light of evolution, it becomes pointless to talk about the precise moment when a particular species came into existence (just as it is pointless to talk about the precise moment when a person changes from being a child to being an adult.) A world with precisely two representatives of species Homo sapiens, one male and one female, is not one that makes sense within the evolutionary picture of the world.

Bonnette, however, also offers a rebuke to those who prefer the second route:

Philosopher Kenneth W. Kemp and others have suggested that interbreeding between true humans and subhuman primates in the same biological population might account for presently observed genetic diversity (Kemp 2011). Such interbreeding is not to be confused with the marriages between true human siblings and cousins which would have occurred in the first generations following Adam and Eve, which unions were a necessary part of Gods plan for the initial propagation of mankind (Gen. 1:28).

The difficulty with any interbreeding solution (save, perhaps, in rare instances) is that it would place at the human races very beginning a severe impediment to its healthy growth and development. Natural law requires that marriage and procreation take place solely between a man and a woman, so that children are given proper role models for adult life. So too, even if the union between a true human and a subhuman primate were not merely transitory, but lasting, the defective parenting and role model of a parent who is not a true human being would introduce serious disorder in the proper functioning of the family and education of children. Hence, widespread interbreeding is not an acceptable solution to the problem of genetic diversity.

Obviously I demur from some of this. Basing your argument on natural law is effectively equivalent to just making it up, and marriage as a social institution simply has no essential connection to child-raising. That aside, as a criticism of Kemps argument this works rather well.

If you are unfamiliar with it, Kemps idea is to imagine some ancient population of hominids. In form and even behavior they might appear to be human, but in reality they are not, since they lack souls. God then chose two of these hominids to receive the gift of ensoulment, thereby making it possible for them to achieve true rationality and enter into a relationship with God. They were the first true humans. So, Adam and Eve were the first humans, but they were not the first hominids. God kept track of their offspring, we go on to suppose, bequeathing souls to the products of their interbreeding with the other hominids.

Now, back in 2011 we spent some time discussing this proposal. Edward Feser defended it. I then criticized it. Feser then replied. I then further responded in two posts: Part One and Part Two. Feser wrote a subsequent post explaining his view of original sin.

Feser has now revived this issue, in a discussion of Bonnettes article. He responds to Bonnette thusly:

Read more here:
Adam and Eve, Continued [EvolutionBlog]

Rising on a tongue of flame and easing to a gentle splashdown in the Pacific Ocean nearly 4-1/2 hours later, the National Aeronautics and Space Administrations newest spaceship for human exploration made its debut earlier this month in a virtually flawless initial test flight.

Dubbed Orion, the craft has been hailed as NASAs first step toward putting humans on Mars by the 2030s. Indeed, its purpose is to reinvigorate the agencys human spaceflight program in the post-shuttle era.

But look deeper at Orions potential path to Mars, and the assumptions surrounding it, and the way ahead appears to be littered with question marks.

What will Orion do before then? Will it make enough flights to justify the program? Are NASA budgets big enough to develop the technologies needed for interim missions, let alone realistically fund a trip to Mars? In a time of fiscal austerity, will subsequent presidents and Congresses even want to make that commitment?

Since the last American set boots on the moon in 1972, politicians and NASA officials have struggled with a stubborn question: What now? The money needed to send humans to intriguing places beyond low-Earth orbit is, well, astronomical. The fall of the Soviet Union made it harder politically to justify such big budgets for human spaceflight.

Orion and its goal of a journey to Mars give NASA a fresh start. And the agency is already applying lessons learned from the recent past, looping in other countries to help pick up the tab for the spacecraft.

But the question remains: Can NASA execute a human space-exploration program on tight budgets? With Mars rovers and probes sent to the outer solar system, NASA has worked wonders with its unmanned missions. In many ways, Orion and the journey to Mars represent a test of whether the agency can do the same with its manned-exploration program.

On the plus side, Americas astronaut corps appears to be excited again.

I think youd be hard-pressed to find an astronaut past, present, or future who wouldnt love to fly in Orion, said Rex Walheim, a space shuttle mission specialist and an astronaut liaison to the team building the craft, following the Dec. 5 test flight. This is the true exploration that we live for.

But NASAs current plans for human exploration of space could span six presidential elections and a dozen sessions of Congress. How solid or consistent will Washingtons willingness to send astronauts on deep-space exploration missions be?

Go here to see the original:
Can NASA's Orion program reinvigorate human spaceflight?

Rising on a tongue of flame and easing to a gentle splashdown in the Pacific Ocean nearly 4-1/2 hours later, the National Aeronautics and Space Administrations newest spaceship for human exploration made its debut earlier this month in a virtually flawless initial test flight.

Dubbed Orion, the craft has been hailed as NASAs first step toward putting humans on Mars by the 2030s. Indeed, its purpose is to reinvigorate the agencys human spaceflight program in the post-shuttle era.

But look deeper at Orions potential path to Mars, and the assumptions surrounding it, and the way ahead appears to be littered with question marks.

What will Orion do before then? Will it make enough flights to justify the program? Are NASA budgets big enough to develop the technologies needed for interim missions, let alone realistically fund a trip to Mars? In a time of fiscal austerity, will subsequent presidents and Congresses even want to make that commitment?

Since the last American set boots on the moon in 1972, politicians and NASA officials have struggled with a stubborn question: What now? The money needed to send humans to intriguing places beyond low-Earth orbit is, well, astronomical. The fall of the Soviet Union made it harder politically to justify such big budgets for human spaceflight.

Orion and its goal of a journey to Mars give NASA a fresh start. And the agency is already applying lessons learned from the recent past, looping in other countries to help pick up the tab for the spacecraft.

But the question remains: Can NASA execute a human space-exploration program on tight budgets? With Mars rovers and probes sent to the outer solar system, NASA has worked wonders with its unmanned missions. In many ways, Orion and the journey to Mars represent a test of whether the agency can do the same with its manned-exploration program.

On the plus side, Americas astronaut corps appears to be excited again.

I think youd be hard-pressed to find an astronaut past, present, or future who wouldnt love to fly in Orion, said Rex Walheim, a space shuttle mission specialist and an astronaut liaison to the team building the craft, following the Dec. 5 test flight. This is the true exploration that we live for.

But NASAs current plans for human exploration of space could span six presidential elections and a dozen sessions of Congress. How solid or consistent will Washingtons willingness to send astronauts on deep-space exploration missions be?

Read more:
Can NASA's Orion program reinvigorate human spaceflight? (+video)

Post-Human Music Mix I - Downtempo TecTrance
I did not create any of the audio or visuals. I just pasted it all together.

By: AnxiousInfusion

Go here to see the original:
Post-Human Music Mix I - Downtempo TecTrance - Video

ARKANSAS (KFSM) Apple CEO Tim Cook donated an undisclosed amount of money to a Human Rights Campaign (HRC) project in three southern states, including Arkansas, according to a blog post from the HRC.

The Human Rights Campaign was involved with the organization Keep Fayetteville Fair, which aimed at stopping the repeal of the civil rights ordinance. That ordinance was later repealed by a special election on Dec. 9.

Cook is the first openly gay CEO of a Fortune 500 company, the blog post states.

He donated to the HRCs Project One America, which is a comprehensive campaign to dramatically advance equality for LGBT Americans in Alabama, Arkansas and Mississippi, according to the blog post.

Im in, Cook said, when he learned about the project.

As the head of one of the largest and most influential companies in the world, his decision sent ripples across the globe with one clear and powerful message: Its okay to be gay, the blog post states.

Cooks donation was a personal one and did not come from Apple, according to the blog post.

The project will get into full swing in 2015 and contain a greater urgency than ever before, the post states.

The Human Rights Campaign has a total of 1.5 million members in America, according to the blog post.

Read the original:
Apple CEO Tim Cook Donates To Human Rights Campaign Project In Arkansas

The European Union cannot turn a blind eye to the horrors faced by the people of Iran, writes Soraya Post.

Soraya Post is a Member of European Parliament from Sweden, Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats.

There is a crisis going on in Iran. I am not referring to the ongoing nuclear talks, which seem to continue with no end in sight. Nor am I referring to the regional crisis which has been fueled by Irans meddling in Syria and Iraq and given rise to the horror which is ISIS. I am referring to the ongoing human rights crisis in Iran, and the failure of the international community to hold the regime accountable for its war against its own people. 10 December marked international human rights day, those of us in Europe should have used this occasion to stand firm in our support for those who stand for freedom, equality and democracy in Iran.

Irans human rights record is of particular concern, given that the West remains engaged in ongoing negotiations over its nuclear program, yet there appears little urgency to pressure Iran on this key issue. Policy makers should not forget that the Iranian people, who are the main target of Irans human rights crisis, should be considered stakeholders in these nuclear talks. Yet the voice of those who are fighting for freedom in Iran have been marginalized in these talks, and brutally suppressed by the mullahs in power.

The regime has sought to cast an image of moderation after Hassan Rouhani was selected as President. In point of fact, Irans human rights situation has only gotten worse over the last year, both in terms of the heightened repression as well as the illusion that the situation is improving. Nothing could be further than the truth.

During the last 15 months of Rouhani's presidency, there have been more than 1100 executions in Iran. This represents one of the highest figures for executions during the entire history of the Islamic Republic. These executions rates are also combined with a general crackdown against dissent throughout Iranian, including the repression of Christians and other ethnic minorities.

The regime has also instituted a new wave of misogynistic attacks in order to target one of its main threats, the growing number of young women who want democratic change in Iran. In the past months there has been a rise of heinous attacks against women, including more than a dozen instances in which women have had acid thrown in their faces for being improperly veiled. These attacks occurred with impunity and were motivated by the regime's call for citizens to police those who dress in an immoral manner.

In October the regime continued its attack against women by executing Reyhaneh Jabbari, a 26-year-old woman who was accused of killing a man who worked for the Iranian intelligence agency. Jabbari maintained that she acted in self defense, after the man had attempted to force himself on to her, however she was executed after seven years in prison, despite international outcry over the fairness of her trial. Amnesty International called her execution another bloody stain on Irans human rights record.

On November 2014, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the UNs 61st resolution censuring the flagrant and systematic violation of human rights in the Iran. This resolution highlights the current crisis in Iran, but demonstrates the regimes long term record as one of the worst human rights violators in the world. Is this a partner for peace? Should we look to such a regime for stability and cooperation?

As Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, the President of the National Council of Resistance of Iran has underscored, the Iranian regime continues to violate all 30 articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Mrs. Rajavi has echoed the feelings of the Iranian people in arguing that continued engagement with the dictatorship in Iran only emboldens their repressive war against their own citizenry. This war is motivated by the regimes desire to maintain power and suppress any form of dissent.

See the article here:
Tehrans egregious human rights record should not be overlooked for nuclear talks