1 posted on
05/20/2010 10:39:53 AM PDT by
mgstarr
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-27 next last
To: mgstarr
This is a step towards ... creation of living beings with capacities and natures that could never have naturally evolved.
We will regret this one day
2 posted on
05/20/2010 10:41:25 AM PDT by
mainsail that
(Vote Obama: Get 15 salaries and retire at 45!)
To: mgstarr
What happens if these “bacteria” escape. I doubt that we have any natural resistance to them.
3 posted on
05/20/2010 10:41:58 AM PDT by
The Sons of Liberty
(The 0bama regime represents an "Clear and Present Danger" to the US - Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin)
To: mgstarr
Did they create it, or did they fabricate it?
To: mgstarr
Sorry, but this is not creation. Taking parts and reassembling them isn’t exactly anything new.
6 posted on
05/20/2010 10:44:13 AM PDT by
Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
(We bury Democrats face down so that when they scratch, they get closer to home.)
To: mgstarr
8 posted on
05/20/2010 10:44:23 AM PDT by
DocRock
(All they that TAKE the sword shall perish with the sword. Matthew 26:52 Gun grabbers beware.)
To: mgstarr
Does it have a Hawaiian birth certificate?
9 posted on
05/20/2010 10:45:29 AM PDT by
jessduntno
(Kagan...Filly-bust-her. Bork her. Bork her hard. She needs it.)
To: mgstarr
Total bunk.... at some point they had to introduce the real thing.
Are they claiming to have created a DNA strand? or just that they animated some inert DNA?
10 posted on
05/20/2010 10:46:08 AM PDT by
Safrguns
To: mgstarr
They are liars! They did not create a living organism from 4 bottles of chemicals. They added DNA to it. That’s cheating. Who invented the DNA?
11 posted on
05/20/2010 10:46:48 AM PDT by
DallasDeb
(USAFA '06 Mom)
To: mgstarr
They did not create a living organism. They inserted artificially created
genetic material into a living cell - big, HUGE difference.
When scientist take some chemicals, swish it around in a beaker and pour it into a petri dish, where it then begins to grow, call me. Until then, no one has yet to create life.
To: mgstarr
To: mgstarr
File this under “What can possibly go wrong?”.
To: mgstarr
The researchers built up the synthetic genome of M mycoides, with its million chemical letters, by stitching together shorter stretches of DNA, each about 1,000 letters long. They then transferred the completed genome into the shell of another bacterium M capricolum whose own DNA had been removed.
They used 4 different strands of pre-existing DNA to do this. They did not create the "life" from scratch. What a huge misrepresentation.
16 posted on
05/20/2010 10:49:44 AM PDT by
wbarmy
(I decided to be a sheepdog when I saw what happens to sheep.)
To: mgstarr
Here is
another article on this.
If this is indeed true, then the long-range implications could shake our basic worldview. It is easy to see life as magic of a sort. This finding, if correct, means that Steven Weinberg's quip about life being "just a disease of matter" is correct. And that makes life, all life, us included, just "meat machines".
17 posted on
05/20/2010 10:50:30 AM PDT by
Joe Brower
(Sheep have three speeds: "graze", "stampede" and "cower".)
To: mgstarr
One day a group of scientists got together and decided that man had come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one scientist to go and tell Him that they were done with Him.
The scientist walked up to God and said, “God, we’ve decided that we no longer need you. We’re to the point that we can clone people and do many miraculous things, so why don’t you just go on and get lost.”
God listened very patiently and kindly to the man and after the scientist was done talking, God said, “Very well, how about this, let’s say we have a man making contest.” To which the scientist replied, “OK, great!”
But God added, “Now, we’re going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam.”
The scientist said, “Sure, no problem” and bent down and grabbed himself a handful of dirt.
God just looked at him and said, “No, no, no. You go get your own dirt!”
21 posted on
05/20/2010 10:53:13 AM PDT by
Eepsy
(www.pioacademy.org)
To: mgstarr
"Scientists have turned inanimate chemicals into a living organism."
Yeah, right, and I just turned my oatmeal into a hamburger.
But seriously, I just ain't buyin' it. Any number of things could corrupt or mess up their experiment.
To: mgstarr
I’ve been reading news releases about scientists creating life since the 60s, and it ain’t been so yet.
And even if they do do it, it was still created, not spontaneous.
I don’t know what that means in the larger scheme of things, but it wouldn’t hurt to keep it in mind.
25 posted on
05/20/2010 10:59:34 AM PDT by
chesley
(Lib arguments are neither factual, logical, rational, nor reasonable. They are, however, creative.)
To: mgstarr
“Created”?? Yeah, right.
When a scientist does that sort of “creating” with another scientist’s writings, it’s called “plagiarism”.
28 posted on
05/20/2010 11:03:39 AM PDT by
LearsFool
("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
To: mgstarr
The researchers built up the synthetic genome of M mycoides, with its million chemical letters, by stitching together shorter stretches of DNA, each about 1,000 letters long. They then transferred the completed genome into the shell of another bacterium M capricolum whose own DNA had been removed. Wow. So the gist of this article is just a plain old lie.
32 posted on
05/20/2010 11:37:40 AM PDT by
Sloth
(Civil disobedience? I'm afraid only the uncivil kind is going to cut it this time.)
To: mgstarr
Intelligent design. But remember: it’s not science.
35 posted on
05/20/2010 11:51:44 AM PDT by
r9etb
To: mgstarr
This is a step towards ... creation of living beings with capacities and natures that could never have naturally evolved.In short, intelligent design.
Don't tell Richard Dawkins.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-27 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson