Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Nebullis
You are reading this incorrectly. No shrimp of any kind were produced.

Is my English that hard to read?

no little population of legless brine shrimp was produced? Rather what was achieved was a diminished glow in the modified shrimp embryos, or am I reading this incorrectly?

I am not Clinton, no means no. And embryo is used in the documentation.

As to the lactose intolerance issue, nothing of the sort was proven in the article where you presented that argument. What was determined from that article was ---

The researchers drew blood samples in order to study the DNA of a Finnish group of 196 lactose-intolerant adults of African, Asian and European descent. Each of them showed the genetic mutation for lactose intolerance in their DNA.

All else is speculation.

106 posted on 02/09/2002 10:04:10 AM PST by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies ]


To: AndrewC
I am not Clinton, no means no. And embryo is used in the documentation.

A drosophila embryo is used in the documentation. Not a shrimp embryo.

108 posted on 02/09/2002 10:08:52 AM PST by Nebullis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies ]

To: AndrewC
As to the lactose intolerance issue, nothing of the sort was proven in the article where you presented that argument.

It's very simple. I explained this to you before. I'll repeat it. This is background information which is not mentioned in the UCLA article or news release, and it's freely available to anyone interested. There is (1) a congenital lactose intolerance condition which prevents infants from being able to digest milk. This is the condition you keep bringing up.

Normally, the enzyme which allows lactose digestion is turned off as the child ages. But, in a subset of the world's population a mutation is present which allows this enzyme to persist into adulthood, making it possible to digest lactose as adults. This is not speculation. This is the condition (2) that the article refers to.

(1) and (2) are different conditions, each involving different etiologies.

109 posted on 02/09/2002 10:20:38 AM PST by Nebullis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies ]

To: AndrewC
Is my English that hard to read?

This isn't word-parsing, AndrewC. Your post containing the supplemental information quote from the article demonstrated a clear misunderstanding of the central parts of the paper. There is no excuse for this because news releases and multiple synopses have been presented on these threads over the last few days.

111 posted on 02/09/2002 10:30:10 AM PST by Nebullis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson