DISQUS

David, you clearly misunderstand Darwin's theory of evolution. First point in that it's a "theory"...so is the "theory" of gravity.

To the contrary of what you say, scientists HAVE proven that new species can evolve from current species. An example is a recently published paper where bacteria were observed to evolve a gene to metabolize citrate, which is a speciation event http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn1409....

Furthermore, if you had actually read any of Darwin's works, you would see that he argues that species is arbitrary and a man-made concept. He uses the term "variety", which I feel is more accurate. Over time, a population of organisms changes, and we call these different populations species.

Homosexuals are perfectly capable of having children; there is nothing physically preventing them from doing so. What do you say then about heterosexual individuals who are infertile? Must this also not be inherited? If you had the faintest idea of how genetics works, then you would have understood the post and made a logical comment.

Lastly, hate to break this to you, but the bible was NOT written by god, but rather was written by MEN. In fact, many books, especially in the old Testament, were written by multiple men. Go find a biblical scholar who will argue the contrary. And while we're on this topic, you should also read Deuteronomy 22:11 says "You shall not wear a material mixed of wool and linen together." Do you work on the Sabbath? I think you should go back and read the bible and see what else you're missing...

haha I love the ending. The picture really makes it.

Reagent costs themselves should be more than a few dollars. The hard part is going to be keeping the reagents cold/frozen in villages without electricity. I read about an invention a few months ago about a device that you heated and it cooled things for several hours. But many other techniques exist, such as http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2004/04/1...

We did an experiment with those chemical hand warmers you guy at Wal-mart or any other store, and stuck a tube in them. It was the perfect temperature for the reaction, and an hour later we got a positive result.

So in short, this should be very cheap and practical in developing countries.

Chris, what do you consider to be factual stuff? Only what's in the bible? (based on your link to christianjournal.org). Why would you consider this to be made up? Have you read the original paper? If so, you would see that this is not just "made up".

Ed, you bring up a very good point about methylation and other proteins on the DNA. If you only care about sequence, these things don't matter, but they definitely influence which genes are active or repressed, and even how active a gene is. I suppose it depends on what you're storing the data for.

That's a good point Steve, since if it was a big deal they would publish it. Thanks.

Well, it's only somewaht recently that wealthier and more educated people had fewer children. Especially in Asian countries, the upper classes had more children. Modern societies are really relatively recent on the human timeline, and such a slight variation in reproduction won't make much of a difference in that short of period. Also, education and wealth aren't really tied to genetics; particularly in the United States, many people who are now wealthy had grandparents that were poor and uneducated. The opposite is also true.

Yeah that is true and a very good point. It's why our theories and models work for our every day usage. Many of our theories and models work well enough at describing our perception of the world, which is why we use them and believe them to be true.

I'm curious though, what specifically about thermodynamics being "wrong" were you referring to?

5-MeO-DMT and DMT are very different experiences. However, I still stand by my assertion that DMT and psilocybin are very similar. Psilocybin is slow onset, while DMT sets on very quickly, which I attribute to the "terror" some people feel.

As for the children, I suppose what I said was not what I meant; higher levels of DMT may be one of the contributing factors to children's creativity.

5-MeO-DMT is a "venom" produced by toads, and is also present in certain plants. It's very similar to DMT, which is produced by several types of plants, but is also naturally present in the human body in small quantities. It has been suggested that this is the origin of children's creativity, since naturally produced DMT levels are higher in children than adults. Both structurally and in its effects, it is similar to psilocybin, which is the active compound in psychedelic mushrooms. DMT is much shorter lasting though than psilocybin.

I personally thought the Simpson's one was the best.

John C: I think that's actually a really great way to solve the problem. I wish more states adopted laws similar to Oregons'.

I agree. However, there's still a lot of wasted money and resources, not to mention the slowing of scientific development.

Yeah you're right. The guy who's quoted is wrong; I missed that. LSD definitely does not come from mushrooms. He must be thinking of psilocybin. Thanks for pointing that out.

Yes, that is correct. The placenta is from the fetus. However, since it integrates with the mother and also becomes part of her body, I would say that it's just as much the mother's organ as it is the fetus's; it just has the genotype of the fetus. I'm not an expert in this field, so I don't know if other scientists actually consider it to be the mother's organ.

My favorite part was the irony where I said "Induced pluripotent stem cells were used because of the ethical concern surrounding embryonic stem cells."

For those who don't know, this is just a way to refer to where the mutation occurred. A146X means that in the protein, amino acid number 146, normally alanine (A), is mutated to either proline or serine. T242N means amino acid 242, normally threonine (T), is mutated to asparagine (N).

Thanks for the comment. I'm glad some of these posts are spurring some thought provoking comments.

In response to what you said, these organisms wouldn't be designed to survive on their own. Certainly an organism can dominate the ecosystem and cause a lot of problems; an example is when cyanobacteria evolved and made Earth's atmosphere poisonous with oxygen.

I don't think that's a risk with this. First, most organisms channel all their energy into reproducing, generally at least. These custom oil producing bacteria or algae would put all their energy into making oil; this doesn't help them survive, but actually hurts it, so natural selection would not favor them. We could also make them deficient in some gene necessary for reproduction, or modify a promoter of a key gene in the cell cycle pathway, such as one of the cyclin dependent kinases, so that they will only divide when we expose them to a particular chemical. This would also prevent them from "getting out" into the wild.

In essence, these man made organisms wouldn't be able to survive on their own, and if they could, they would die off pretty quickly because they couldn't compete with other more "fit" organisms. The idea is to simply use the cellular machinery and enzymes to catalyze the reaction for us.