I'm with redphone. There are obviously better options than those offered. And with Zandt too. How are you so certain that something else won't happen to prevent the deaths of the 5 people... Should you kill the one man assuming it's the only option, or not kill him and pray.
Anyway, the purpose is not to "make life." The purpose is to make a tool, a little machine to do this or that... whatever we design it to do. We've already manipulated bacteria many times to do certain things for us, even things as simple as making proteins for research. This just takes it a step further. It takes us one step closer to being able to design bacteria to do things like chew up sewage to make Hydrogen gas, or add to your daily vitamine regimen to help in digestion, or heck, maybe we could make an edible one to use as a food source for cattle or whatnot. The possibilities are only limited by our creativity and cleverness.
This is astounding claim. Genetics is not nearly as simple as people imagine it to be. A chromosome is not simply a string of single unit genes likes pearls on a necklace. Every gene has its coding sequence, some noncoding intron sequences that are cut out later, a promoter to start mRNA production, an enhancer to boost it or in converse a repressor to shut it down, various other up and down stream effectors. Also, the cell can make modifications to permanently stop expression of a gene; it can also essentially tie up synthesis by packaging it in proteins. On top of all this, the genome encodes little RNAs (microRNA) that are capable to control the actual mRNA levels after the gene is transcribed to mRNA. Even after this, proteins need to be activated/deactivated/folded/unfolded/localized/reduced/oxidized/modified/etc/etc/etc to function properly.
To say that they've gutted the genome of a bacteria and made an entirely new species by putting the pieces back together... and saying they succeeded in making a living/replicating/functional organism is down-right EXTRORDINARY! Far from a hack-job.
On second thought. I can't really think of anyone better to get it this year. The worlds been a little dry in that department lately.
It's also true that he did "get the word out," but the word was already out. He just exaggerated it into some nightmare catastrophic Waterworldian prophecy that the UN report doesn't support. Hey, it worked, people got conscious of the problem I guess... they just all think it's worse than it likely is. As for him not claiming to be a scientist, well, that's a no-brainer, but people look to him as a sort of authority on climate change, and they should not.
Absolutely not, but this isn't the first time the peace prize was given to entirely the wrong person. It happens basically every year.
His film is LOADED with blatant factual errors, exaggerations, and drama. If you want to know what the world thinks about climate change you can read the UN report. His film doesn't even compare. Science does not support his film.
You've missed the point. It's a campaign in protest of all the other ultra-environmental campaigns that use equally as charged words to forward their ideas. Oh, and they have T-shirts and bumper-stickers and crap too.
Getting pissed off by it just shows how much people have been convinced that humanity is somehow unnatural and evil.
Still, I'll give you it is an illconceived idea and will wind up having the opposite effect that it intended.
I think they're saying this new one is farther into the red than RFP Alex. Not sure, but that would be a bit valuable I guess. Also, since RFP is just a minor variation of GFP in terms of size/sequence/shape, perhaps having a new unique red tag would give you an option if RFP screws with your protein's function.
Doubting faith is a very common part of any religious life. We all feel times of spiritual dryness. Even in the oldest biblical history, many of the great patriarchs sometimes had great periods of time where God was silent and did not speak or intervene.
Anyway, the quotes are probably taken out of context. Taking a sentence here and there or even a letter here and there out of a lifetime just doesn't cut it. And accusing her of schmoozing with the rich and abandoning the poor is just as out of context. The salon.com news article above is poorly argued to say the least. Accepting a reward for philanthropy is no crime. Defending a person who gives to the poor is no crime. Forgiving a dictator is no crime. I'd argue that they're philanthropic in and of themselves. I'll remind that even Jesus shared meals with tax collectors and prostitutes (the sick are the ones in need of healing...) And if you think that traveling the world to gain donations for philanthropic causes is somehow wrong and should be frowned upon, then... well... fortunately, no one agrees with you.
I'd argue that the salon.com does quite well at arguing the opposite point it is trying to make. It states her political postures as wrong, while most Christians would say they are mostly right. LOL. Just goes to show that some people have no concept whatsoever of what religious people value and what they consider to be right and wrong. From the article: "It seemed more than probable that money donated by well-wishers for the relief of suffering was being employed for the purpose of religious proselytizing by the 'missionary multinational.'" Let's rephrase: Donations by well-wishers for the relief of human suffering were spent sharing the truth of the saving grace of Christ with the nations.
Blurby, you're assuming that the foundation of Christianity isn't true. If it is, as many people of many levels of education and many backgrounds believe it is, then NOT teaching it to your children is a grave irresponsibility. You may believe it is false, but that doesn't make it false. In my opinion, "the single biggest fraud perpetrated on western civilization" is atheist humanism.
And the thought that all intelligent, educated, thinking people believe it to be false is also simply untrue.
In addition, the "proof" you refer to is dependent on philosophical (not to mention scientific) assumptions (read: beliefs) we're all [hopefully] taught in philosophy 101. So which beliefs are ok and which aren't? Apparently yours are the only ones that are allowed.
To say that they've gutted the genome of a bacteria and made an entirely new species by putting the pieces back together... and saying they succeeded in making a living/replicating/functional organism is down-right EXTRORDINARY! Far from a hack-job.
It's also true that he did "get the word out," but the word was already out. He just exaggerated it into some nightmare catastrophic Waterworldian prophecy that the UN report doesn't support. Hey, it worked, people got conscious of the problem I guess... they just all think it's worse than it likely is. As for him not claiming to be a scientist, well, that's a no-brainer, but people look to him as a sort of authority on climate change, and they should not.
His film is LOADED with blatant factual errors, exaggerations, and drama. If you want to know what the world thinks about climate change you can read the UN report. His film doesn't even compare. Science does not support his film.
Getting pissed off by it just shows how much people have been convinced that humanity is somehow unnatural and evil.
Still, I'll give you it is an illconceived idea and will wind up having the opposite effect that it intended.
Anyway, the quotes are probably taken out of context. Taking a sentence here and there or even a letter here and there out of a lifetime just doesn't cut it. And accusing her of schmoozing with the rich and abandoning the poor is just as out of context. The salon.com news article above is poorly argued to say the least. Accepting a reward for philanthropy is no crime. Defending a person who gives to the poor is no crime. Forgiving a dictator is no crime. I'd argue that they're philanthropic in and of themselves. I'll remind that even Jesus shared meals with tax collectors and prostitutes (the sick are the ones in need of healing...) And if you think that traveling the world to gain donations for philanthropic causes is somehow wrong and should be frowned upon, then... well... fortunately, no one agrees with you.
I'd argue that the salon.com does quite well at arguing the opposite point it is trying to make. It states her political postures as wrong, while most Christians would say they are mostly right. LOL. Just goes to show that some people have no concept whatsoever of what religious people value and what they consider to be right and wrong.
From the article:
"It seemed more than probable that money donated by well-wishers for the relief of suffering was being employed for the purpose of religious proselytizing by the 'missionary multinational.'"
Let's rephrase:
Donations by well-wishers for the relief of human suffering were spent sharing the truth of the saving grace of Christ with the nations.
And the thought that all intelligent, educated, thinking people believe it to be false is also simply untrue.
In addition, the "proof" you refer to is dependent on philosophical (not to mention scientific) assumptions (read: beliefs) we're all [hopefully] taught in philosophy 101. So which beliefs are ok and which aren't? Apparently yours are the only ones that are allowed.