Nothing to add, just here to support my people. 
I meant that the stem-cell controversy can be ignored as irrelevant intellectually, not politically. Like climate-change denial.
I, for one, welcome our new chimeric overlords. Spiderman, Batman, Antman, and especially Catwoman…
Don’t forget the Elephant Man.
Screw that and screw them. I want the eyesight of an eagle, and if I have to splice eagle dna into my genes to give my future progeny this enhancement, they are damn well getting it.
All barriers to the genetic revolution will be torn asunder, no limits, let the flood gates of humanity 2.0 begin.
If we’re going there, I want one or two more prehensile appendages.
I want chameleon genes.
Well, then I want the strength of a gorill-
-BLAM!-
You can have the color-changing skin, I’ll settle for the tongue.
I want both!
A meat-eating plant wants camouflage, and a brain-eating zombie wants a tongue that’s twice as long as his body?
I may have to rethink my opposition to this legislation. Or I guess I could just embrace the zeitgeist and get some velociraptor genes.
I didn’t see what you did there.
Chameleon genes.
What about a prehensile penis? It could both hold your beer or please the ladies.
Simultaneously?
I think most women would object to that.
Just MHO, of course.
That’d be damn useful. How 'bout it, Science?
Just a random rant. Please stop talking about The Island of Dr. Moreau when mentioning chimeras. Apparently I am the only once who has read the book which is NOT about human-animal chimeras. What Dr. Moreau did was to operate on animals in order to allow them to speak and move like humans (ie altering their focal cords, reshaping limbs etc and may have combined animals but not with any actual human components. The underlying question raised is what makes a being “human”-is it human appearance and behavior or is there an underlying fundamental difference between humans and other animals and can these animal truly be human in the way that we are. In addition, there is the question of how much authority humans should have over animals who are to a degree sentient. I found it a fascinating book and much more interesting than the “he created human-animal hybrids” assumption it’s been reduced to.
I’d agree to the extent of saying that, rather, they fear that more information about technology like this will make it more difficult to maintain the concept that we’re different than animals and that a soul is a viable concept.
It’s like with abortion. The moment semen is ejaculated into a woman, there’s a desire to insist that a soul has been created and that a “baby” exists. But, scientifically, if you mix an egg yolk and sperm, you’ve just got a glop of goo. And it’s clearly a glop of goo. A scientific understanding of the process where the egg (a single cell) begins to divide and form a more complex structure causes a really wishy-washy definition of humanity. Technically, we’re a pile of life forms - cells - that happen to have found a macro-structure that they can bond to one another to form, that is more capable of foraging for energy than the individual cells would have been otherwise. And heck, even cells aren’t their own life forms. Within a cell, there’s three different sets of DNA for three different creatures, the cell, the mitochondria, and the chloroplasts. A human is four different life forms, all cohabiting. Which one gets the soul? When I die, and go to Hell as a sinner, are my mitochrondria going as well? Or do they get a pass, since they’re just glorified bacteria?
All that said, I don’t think that genetic tampering would slow down the soul theory at all (unless we start using genetic modification to make the species smarter). I personally hypothesize, for example, that the impetus for the creation of the Church of Latter Day Saints was as a method for people to come to grips with the fact that God had made no effort whatsoever to inform the Native Americans about Christianity. He’d let them all die as sinners for thousands of years, without once trying to give them a chance to earn his grace. At the time, when the land was still populated by natives, this question would have been at the front of everyone’s mind, and it would have perplexed them and made them question the mercy of God.
And so when Mormonism came into being, it had the great benefit of explaining the backstory of God and the Native Americans. For those believers who needed to keep believing, following Joseph Smith allowed them to resolve their crisis of conscience.
And now that we never see a Native American in daily life - the take over being a fait accompli - it’s no longer an issue that occurs to most people, and there’s no strong impetus to become a Mormon.
Basically, faith adapts, because people need it to adapt. They’ll redefine the religion or create a new religion in accordance with the technologies and social mores of the day. There isn’t any value actually achieved by trying to delay progress - if the goal is just to keep people pledged to a church.
But, they do try, because they don’t trust that. They would prefer to hide the things we have learned that make the religious view of the world seem silly. But, clearly, that is not necessary. There’s no secret that we’re not a single life form. And yet, you will note, it’s not a big issue amongst the faithful. It’s very easy to ignore things that conflict with your faith, so long as it is not aggressively in your face.