Slashdot Mirror


Alligator Blood May Be Source of New Antibiotics

esocid writes "Biochemists from McNeese State University have described how proteins in gator blood may provide a source of powerful new antibiotics to help fight infections associated with diabetic ulcers and severe burns. This new class of drug could also crack so-called 'superbugs' that are resistant to conventional medication. Previous studies have showed alligators have an unusually strong immune system; unlike humans, alligator immune systems can defend against microorganisms such as fungi, viruses, and bacteria without having prior exposure to them. Scientists believe that this is an evolutionary adaptation to promote quick wound healing, as alligators are often injured during fierce territorial battles."

265 comments

  1. Cue TMNTs by esocid · · Score: 3, Funny

    I just can't shake the image of leatherhead from teenage mutant ninja turtles from my mind now. whatcouldpossiblygowrong?

    --
    Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
    1. Re:Cue TMNTs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I can't shake the image of Diana from V

      http://thevisitors.info/intro.html

      At least Glen A Larson didn't TOTALLY own my childhood...

    2. Re:Cue TMNTs by jaymzter · · Score: 2, Funny

      In related news, Dr Curt Connors of Everglades Patch, Florida has filed a patent suit against the University for misappropriation of his intellectual property.

      --
      If thou see a fair woman pay court to her, for thus thou wilt obtain love
    3. Re:Cue TMNTs by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Funny, my first thought was of Spiderman's enemy, the Lizard.

    4. Re:Cue TMNTs by Stonent1 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      The problem is, alligator is not Kosher and probably not Halal (but I don't know for sure). I'm not sure how animal products work into medications, but some such as Armour Thyroid use dessicated pork thyroid glands as an ingredient and may not be Kosher.

    5. Re:Cue TMNTs by smooth+wombat · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I'm going to get flamed for this but here goes anyway: if someone let's their religion dictate what medication or treatment they can or cannot receive, they have no one but themselves to blame for their illnesses or early death.


      Like this couple for example. I'm sure there are hundreds of other similar cases you can find with little effort.

      The joke about a doctor asking their patient if they believe in ID or evolution determining whether they get a flu shot is very appropriate in this situation.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    6. Re:Cue TMNTs by MrNaz · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I am a Muslim, and I can say that in Islam, there is a blanket overruling of all prohibited substances in the course of saving a life, such as eating pork in starvation situations or deriving medicine from alcoholic sources. Deriving medication from pigs would be allowed, and so too would medicine from alligator blood.

      Most opiate analgesics and anaesthetics are, for example, prohibited under the intoxication rule (the one that prohibits alcohol), but are allowed in medical situations. Same for alcohol used in field treatment of hypothermia and other emergency situations.

      I'm not sure about the Kosher rules in Judaism, but in Islam, any substance of medicinal value is permitted if necessary for the health of the patient.

      This rule is conscience based I guess, for all of you thinking of that Simpsons episode where the blind guy was smoking weed for "medicinal purposes".

      --
      I hate printers.
    7. Re:Cue TMNTs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      As far as I understand, the same is true in Judaism. The "laws of kashrut" are overruled when one's life or health is at stake.

      It may be helpful to add that Orthadox Jews traditionally keep kosher on a voluntary, not compulsory, basis. That is, the rules are followed in order to honor god, not because there is some terrible consequence or threat involved if they do not do so. It is not a "keep kosher or go to hell" kind of thing. It is more like "God asks that we keep kosher. We love and honor god, so we will therefore, as a practice of worship and respect, keep kosher as god requests."

    8. Re:Cue TMNTs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd say it's more like Dr. Curt Connors/Lizard from Spiderman but he used Lizards instead of Crocodiles to regrow his arm.

    9. Re:Cue TMNTs by lawnbird · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Same for alcohol used in field treatment of hypothermia and other emergency situations.

      Give alcohol to a hypothermic person and you will kill them.

    10. Re:Cue TMNTs by MrNaz · · Score: 1

      Really? I thought that once you had them in a warm environment, alcohol would help increase circulation and even out body temperature. Or perhaps it will cause a sudden rush to the heart of cold blood that was near the skin. I've not got any training in cold weather rescue, so excuse my ignorance.

      In any case, the point I was making was that in a medical or survival situation, alcohol becomes permissible.

      --
      I hate printers.
    11. Re:Cue TMNTs by philspear · · Score: 1

      Give alcohol to a hypothermic person and you will kill them.

      Well, better to die drunk than to die sober.
    12. Re:Cue TMNTs by intangible · · Score: 2, Funny

      You got that wrong:
      Better to die drunk, than live sober.

    13. Re:Cue TMNTs by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think it causes the blood vessels to expand, hence the drunk's bulbous nose. And if you're still out in the cold, expanding the capillaries on your skin is the last thing you want to do.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    14. Re:Cue TMNTs by Bryansix · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I believe in ID as well as Micro-Evolution so I'll take that flu shot thank you very much.

    15. Re:Cue TMNTs by John+Newman · · Score: 3, Informative

      Really? I thought that once you had them in a warm environment, alcohol would help increase circulation and even out body temperature. Or perhaps it will cause a sudden rush to the heart of cold blood that was near the skin. I've not got any training in cold weather rescue, so excuse my ignorance.
      Alcohol is a mild vasodilator, so it would reverse your body's major defense against cold, restricting blood flow to the extremities/surface and keeping a pool of warm blood in the core. Even after the person is in a warm environment, vasodilation is dangerous because the extremities/skin are cold, the blood there is cold, and suddenly moving a bunch of warm core blood through the cold extremities and back will lower the core temperature further. The teaching is that this could kill a patient by pushing their core temperature down suddenly, past the critical value. When resuscitating a severely hypothermic patient, you always warm from the inside out, and you never give vasodilators.
    16. Re:Cue TMNTs by MrNaz · · Score: 1

      Out of curiosity and because you seem to know a lot about this (I'm into outdoor sports like rock climbing, hiking and snowboarding so it may come in handy one day), what are the best ways to warm from the inside out? Giving warm fluids to drink? I would assume that putting them in the hot tub would result in vasodilation, right? (Perhaps we could discuss this via IM, all my contact details are on my site, mentioned in my sig.)

      --
      I hate printers.
    17. Re:Cue TMNTs by vegiVamp · · Score: 0

      I believe part of the prohibition is any creature that has fangs or claws, so croc would normally not be considered fit for consumption, right ?

      So, does that mean that the croc-based medicine would be allowed when the patient's life is in danger, but not as a preventative measure to strengthen the immune system (in the same way that vitamins are taken regularly) ?

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    18. Re:Cue TMNTs by mwigmani · · Score: 1

      I'm not an S&R person or anything, but I live in New England and spend a lot of time climbing and hiking in the White Mountains of New Hampshire in the winter where temps are consistently below 0 Fahrenheit.

      In the field the quickest way to warm a hypothermic person would be to get them out of any wet clothes and into dry clothes and then into a sleeping bag and a tent. These won't rewarm a person suffering from hypothermia, but it will protect them from the elements and hopefully keep their core temperature from dropping any lower.

      Simultaneously start boiling some water inside the tent. This will raise the ambient temperature of the tent, and the heated water vapor will help (slightly) warm them from inside. If they're severely hypothermic they'll likely be unable to drink, but if they can, then get some warm liquid in them as soon as possible. Even better than simple water would be anything with small amounts of simple carbohydrates (glucose) to get some quick calories (even just mixing in some Jell-O would be helpful). Obviously, avoid anything with caffeine or alcohol.

      Lacking those resources, build a fire. Lacking that try to rewarm the person with your own body heat.

      To reiterate, I have no professional rescue experience, this is just from limited personal experience and what I've read.

      If you're really interested, check out the book Medicine for Mountaineering (google books has a lengthy preview) and maybe take a Wilderness Medicine course.

    19. Re:Cue TMNTs by Zero+return · · Score: 1
      It's not such a good idea to treat hypothermia with alcohol:

      Avoid alcohol -- it causes dilation of peripheral blood vessels, increasing heat loss. http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/conditions/hypothermia1.shtml/ (link somewhat erratic)
    20. Re:Cue TMNTs by xenocide2 · · Score: 1

      So you believe that proteins created from random changes in DNA exist, and that populations will shift towards advantages ones, but not that these changes could ever be incompatible?

      --
      I Browse at +4 Flamebait

      Open Source Sysadmin

    21. Re:Cue TMNTs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because if you don't honor and love God, He smites you.

      six of one, half a dozen of another

    22. Re:Cue TMNTs by MrNaz · · Score: 1

      There's no prohibition that I am aware of that is based upon general physical appearances, however all animals that eat carrion (scavengers such as wild dogs, most reptiles etc) are not allowed for health reasons.

      There is no test to "how necessary" a treatment has to be, but one has to have a genuine belief that it is beneficial to their health. Prophylactic treatments such as the one you describe would not be excluded unless they had no scientific backing.

      --
      I hate printers.
    23. Re:Cue TMNTs by MrNaz · · Score: 1

      I've discussed that elsewhere in this tread. I was referring to using it to increase circulation *after* the patient had been rescued, not giving them a binge in the snow.

      --
      I hate printers.
    24. Re:Cue TMNTs by Zero+return · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I hadn't seen that post when I replied.

    25. Re:Cue TMNTs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vasodilation... I don't know what that means, but how can a drug that apparently relaxes the cardiovascular system actually cause one to underheat in any area? A faster blood flow should help maintain body temperature through and through, one would think...

      Besides, everyone knows that drinking alcohol causes one's body to get substantially, physically warmer.

    26. Re:Cue TMNTs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      someone let's their religion

      "lets".

  2. Is this a joke? by ben0207 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Were they hoping people wouldn't associate a wonderdrug from a reptile (this shite) with the common phrase "snake oil" (a wonderdrug from a reptile)

    --
    cmd-q.co.uk - some sort of stupid fucking internet bullshit
    1. Re:Is this a joke? by junglee_iitk · · Score: 0, Redundant

      I just laughed thinking this is another dupe, but then I remembered that I was reading Firehose this morning.

      Ok, my expectations from Slashdot are abysmal these days. :p

  3. superbugs by biased_estimator · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This new class of drug could also crack so-called 'superbugs' that are resistant to conventional medication.
    Sure, until we use these new antibiotics so recklessly (or simply so often) that we select for resistant strains.
    1. Re:superbugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      But then we can harvest the proteins from the white blood cells of a different, and even more awesome animal. Everyone wins.

    2. Re:superbugs by snl2587 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Sure, until we use these new antibiotics so recklessly (or simply so often) that we select for resistant strains.

      The fact that people will misuse drugs does not mean we shouldn't make them available. If you read TFA you'll see:

      Their previous research also suggests that blood proteins may help fight HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

      I'd say the possible faster introduction of superbugs may be worth the risk if we can at least try.

    3. Re:superbugs by speaktruth · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "The fact that people will misuse drugs does not mean we shouldn't make them available."

      Someone should probably tell that to the DEA before we waste any more resources on this whole war on drugs thing.

    4. Re:superbugs by gripen40k · · Score: 1

      I totally agree with you here, but there is one thing to think about; what happens if we make an even worse epidemic than HIV/AIDS? Sure we may stop the HIV strain from infecting us, but it may lead to other similar viruses that are totally resistant to the new drugs.

      We should still try to cure HIV, and to introduce these new antibiotics, but we have to figure out a plan to stop the natural development of resistant strains of HIV.

      --
      Har?
    5. Re:superbugs by snl2587 · · Score: 1

      I meant medical drugs...though I do agree with the sentiment and making certain drugs illegal causes more net harm than net good. Different discussion entirely, though.

    6. Re:superbugs by 0xABADC0DA · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What it boils down to is that this reasearch is going to end up killing alligators by making immune germs so that we can raise pigs and chickens under worse conditions. That's what we are talking about really.

      Humans need newer antibiotics because we wasted them growing pigs and chickens, and reducing the puss in milk from overproducing cows. Also, even if this 'cures' HIV the benefit is not so much in saving lives but more in protecting a social order that allows it to spread.

      This will certainly result in a sad reflection on our society, that we would contribute to the destruction of animals that have been around for hundreds of millions of years. So we can have our pork sandwich for lunch for $0.50 less. But hey since we're giving a collective 'fuck you' to the world anyway, why not?

    7. Re:superbugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      what happens if we make an even worse epidemic than HIV/AIDS?

      That would be bad. Wait, is that a trick question?

      On a more serious note, a virus becoming more resistant to a wide range of attacks is not free. The virus has only so many resources, and the more it expends on defense the less ability it has to spread and reproduce. Since the latter is obviously necessary, any individual strain of virus can have only so much defense. So the wider the array of attacks we have the better off we are.

    8. Re:superbugs by snl2587 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Whoa, man. We're talking proteins in the blood...after the initial research it will probably be more practical to produce them synthetically.

      I take it you're not a fan of medical research as it runs opposed to the natural order of things. But if we are in relative control of our own evolution at the moment, why should we allow our species to disappear? If the whole point of life is to propagate, and we have mechanisms in place to accomplish this basic task better, wouldn't it be against nature to do the opposite?

      I find your comment interesting for another reason: you typed your comment on a computer, right? One of the byproducts of modern eco-destructive society? And you likely live in a modern house, use electricity, eat those "pork sandwiches", and probably have benefited from past medical research. The hypocrisy is stunning.

    9. Re:superbugs by ClioCJS · · Score: 2, Insightful
      So you're saying if I'm sick, and I'm not sure if antibiotics may help or not, that I should NOT take them, increasing my risk of actually getting ill --- so that some schmuck 20 years from now doesn't die of an antibiotic-resistant strain that developed?

      How about scientists do their job and stay ahead of the diseases, rather than asking me to GET SICK NOW just to give them more time to find new cures?

      Why the hell should I take one for THIS team?

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    10. Re:superbugs by speaktruth · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Two things: first, I understand that you were talking about medical drugs, and do not want to be misconstrued as a proponent of narcotic legalization. Which brings me to my second point that I was alluding to-but did not explain-in my earlier post. Our culture is a drug culture. We are convinced and teach our children that when they have a problem, an illness, there is almost always a drug that can solve that problem. Is it any wonder then that when people have problems they take a drug that will make them feel better? This counts for both legal and illegal drugs and both physical and emotional/psychological issues. It is not availability that is the real issue, it is the paradigm. We live in a drug culture, and the real war on drugs is an effort to maintain control of them by those that benefit most from them: manufacturers of non-naturally occurring and non-replicatable (without a chemistry degree and a lot of equipment) drugs that are sold at ridiculous margins. More drugs is certainly not the answer to any of our problems, medical or otherwise.

    11. Re:superbugs by repapetilto · · Score: 1

      Dibs on the sharks

    12. Re:superbugs by spun · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's a funny thing, but 'drugs' and 'drugs' mean two completely different things depending on who is profiting from them.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    13. Re:superbugs by emilper · · Score: 1

      Not so much time ago the flu virus was a "superbug". Still, I wonder about this: since the alligators used the same proteins as antibiotics for millions of years, how come no "superbug" resistant to them appeared ?

    14. Re:superbugs by snl2587 · · Score: 1

      and do not want to be misconstrued as a proponent of narcotic legalization

      Actually, I wouldn't mind that as I am a proponent of narcotics legalization despite not being a user myself. Again, different debate, different time.

      As to the second thing: point taken. We are in a drug culture and it is a bit of a problem. But certain ailments won't simply go away by themselves. I feel there is a big difference between the relatively-useless-but-heavily-advertised drugs and those used to help combat HIV and certain infections that often kill already hospitalized patients. And that's what I intended to highlight.

    15. Re:superbugs by j00r0m4nc3r · · Score: 1

      Who is to say that the new resistant strains won't be of some benefit to us? Maybe they will contain a protein that can kill some other even super-er superbug.

    16. Re:superbugs by repapetilto · · Score: 4, Funny

      What we really need is a drug for restless mouth syndrome. "Do you find yourself going on and on about whatever you happen to be thinking about, until people tell you they just don't care? You may have RMS, visit www.rms.com to find out if you have RMS. Small print: Shhhitol is not approved by the FDA for treatment of RMS, consult your physician before beginning any off-label drug regimine"

    17. Re:superbugs by emag · · Score: 5, Funny
      Ok, I'm surprised I haven't seen this yet, so here goes...

      I totally agree with you here, but there is one thing to think about; what happens if we make an even worse epidemic than HIV/AIDS? You mean, something like... Gator-AIDS?
      --
      "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --H.L. Mencken
    18. Re:superbugs by repapetilto · · Score: 1

      how would you know if it had or not?

    19. Re:superbugs by KevinIsOwn · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Except with global warming, many of them will be dead before we have the chance.

    20. Re:superbugs by gripen40k · · Score: 1

      Oh man, I should have known someone would say that :P.

      --
      Har?
    21. Re:superbugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Been to many Company of Heroes strategy sessions lately?

    22. Re:superbugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If this thing takes off, orthodentics is definitely the way to go!

    23. Re:superbugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think that was the type of misuse being talked about.

    24. Re:superbugs by emilper · · Score: 1

      alligators still alive ?

    25. Re:superbugs by repapetilto · · Score: 1

      so are humans?

    26. Re:superbugs by arotenbe · · Score: 3, Funny

      But then we can harvest the proteins from the white blood cells of a different, and even more awesome animal. Sharks with lasers! Aw, dang, someone got it first...

      [runs from moderators with anti-meme missiles]
      --
      Tomato wedge sperm darts that are Republican.
    27. Re:superbugs by biased_estimator · · Score: 1

      I never said they shouldn't be made available. On the contrary, I think its a great discovery, and it will help many people. I just wanted to point out that the "superbugs" are ever evolving, and therefore our ability to fight them is ever fleeting. Unfortunately, there is a lot of antibiotic misuse, which probably increases the selection pressure a bit more more than we could ideally achieve.

    28. Re:superbugs by kris.montpetit · · Score: 1

      Trying this drug would be great so long as on a whole antibiotics were more regulated. There was a superbug outbreak at the hospital where i used to live and doctors still throw them at everything. Maybe if we took that enormous amount of money consumed prosecuting recreational drug users and put it toward medicine, we wouldn't be so worried

    29. Re:superbugs by kris.montpetit · · Score: 1

      It's comments like these that make me happy I live in Canada. :)

    30. Re:superbugs by 0xABADC0DA · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Of course it will "probably" be more practical to produce the antibiotics in some way other than making huge alligator farms. That's pretty obvious.

      What's also obvious is that a bacteria that can invade a single alligator does not get much benefit in terms of survival of those genes that enable it to. But when the antibiotic is found literally everywhere in the ecosystem, like our current antibiotics are, then having a gene that enables it to survive the antibiotic is a huge benefit for its survival. Thus, a superbug that can kill 'crocolisks'. That's what I was talking about and that should also be obvious to any educated person.

      Also, it is not hypocrisy to complain about comcast cable when there are not other viable choices for customers (ie monopoly). It's not hypocrisy to use electricity when it is necessary. Running a big pharma chicken factory and complaining about killing off all 'crocolisks' to make new antibiotics -- that's hypocrisy. I think there is a lot you need to reflect on, sir.

    31. Re:superbugs by omfglearntoplay · · Score: 1

      Hey, if you live in the US, you are never allowed to complain about anything b/c you did it. Game over. Seriously though, he has a few good points. I personally don't mind paying an extra 40 cents for the free ranging chicken eggs and such b/c for one it tastes better and for two I'm not a huge fan of torture... and I'm fairly sure the regular chickens are pretty much tortured. I love to eat my meat, but damn, don't torture the pathetic things for months and months.

    32. Re:superbugs by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      WE FARM ALLIGATORS FOR BOOTS. The meat currently goes to feed the other gators, and is sold to restaurants. There's PLENTY of stuff available for research.

      Are you really that stupid, or do you work at it? "Reflection of society" indeed. I just don't think you intended to be the one in the mirror.

    33. Re:superbugs by markov_chain · · Score: 1

      You guys need to relax. Complaining about exterminating animal species is really quite selfish; people want to preserve them so there is more to look at in TV shows, zoos, more stuff to eat, etc. etc. But nature doesn't really care one way or the other; if humans disappear the suppressed animal species will evolve back again just like after dinosaurs. Learn to quit worrying and love the bomb!

      --
      Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
    34. Re:superbugs by Punko · · Score: 2, Informative

      Steady on.

      There are many antibiotics that are not used in agriculture. They have been set aside to fight the superbugs. Unfortunately, we are finding strains of bacteria resistant to even these "reserved" antibiotics. If it turns out that an antibiotic can kill these bugs, then we can use it just on the superbugs.

      Yes, in time, a bacteria will adapt to this antibiotic. Potentially this bacteria may find its way into the crocodile ecosystem. But look at it this way, if crocodiles have had this antibody in their bodies for (perhaps) millions of years, is it not possible that a resistant bacteria already exists?

      As a note, the reason doctors throw "everything" at a superbug, is because you want to ensure the vast majority of the population is dead, to reduce the possibility of adaptation. In addition, several antibiotics work really well in combination, doing a better job than if utilitized one at a time.

      and lastly, just because a bacteria is resistant to antibodies in your system, doesn't make it fatal. Humans lived through smallpox outbreaks. Many don't. Same thing for your phantom crocolisk superbug. Maybe it invades their systems and give them cold sores.

      --
      If only we could fall into a woman's arms without falling into her hands
    35. Re:superbugs by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Except for the Alligators wiped out by the super strain that ignores their "super" immune system.

    36. Re:superbugs by Lafeek · · Score: 1

      If the whole point of life is to propagate What makes you think that the point to life is to propagate ? It's not because we can see only species that can propagate (cf Darwin's work) that it makes it the point of the life. Propagation is no more the point of life than aggregation (due to gravity) is the point of the matter. It's more like a side effect than a goal (even hidden or driven by a "invisible hand").

      I digress, but let's continue anyway:
      So what's the point of life? I don't know, but why should life have a point?

      Despite all that I've wrote, I still agree with your comment.
    37. Re:superbugs by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 1

      you make excellent points. i must ask though, do you play world of warcraft? i ask because you called them "crocolisk" not crocodile.

      --
      I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
    38. Re:superbugs by 0xABADC0DA · · Score: 1

      Complaining about exterminating animal species is really quite selfish; people want to preserve them so there is more to look at in TV shows, zoos, more stuff to eat, etc. etc. I want to not purposely destroy the alligators, crocodiles, and related animals (which I call 'crocolisks') on principle that we should not use our great intellect to destroy something that has lasted hundreds of millions of years purely because we were so short-sighted and stupid as to piss away what we already had.

      If actually you think giving up a medical cure that could possibly save myself or members of my family is selfish because it is outweighed by having 'more to look at' then what can I say... apparently the superficial outweighs the mortal for you -- that's kind of a fucked up mentality.

      Learn to quit worrying and love the bomb! That movie was intended as satire, you know(?). What you were supposed to learn from it is exactly the opposite.

      /sigh
    39. Re:superbugs by SimonInOz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes indeed. There are a fair number of different animals that fight a lot and thus should be good at recovery - the Tasmanian Devil comes to mind (nasty vicious thing, currently dying out rather, due to a transmissible cancer spread by, ironically, biting each other). Being very different from the alligator is a good thing here.
      Has anyone every looked into vultures - after all, they eat dead carcasses, they must be exposed to quite astounding levels of bugs.
      Not to mention other things that eat dead bodies - ants, for example.

      And what about vampires ... sorry, drifted off. I'm really missing my weekly dose of Buffy.

      --
      "Cats like plain crisps"
    40. Re:superbugs by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      Whoa, man. We're talking proteins in the blood...after the initial research it will probably be more practical to produce them synthetically.
      Are you sure about that? We still bleed horseshoe crabs for biomedical research. We can't synthetically make their blue blood.
    41. Re:superbugs by snl2587 · · Score: 1

      For research, yes, we will probably need to bleed alligators. What I meant is that after we isolate the proteins it will probably be more practical to synthesize the individual proteins (not the whole blood).

    42. Re:superbugs by budgenator · · Score: 1

      I'd put my money on the Komodo Dragon it's bite is so septic that there has been one documented case of a human being bitten by one and surviving after a 6 months hospital stay. They must have a hell of an immune system just to swallow their own saliva!

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    43. Re:superbugs by krayzkrok · · Score: 1

      No, the whole point of this is that it's part of the alligator's innate immune system. These proteins basically break down the walls of bacteria, and assist the adaptive immune system to kill them. Given how these proteins work, it's not really possible to adapt quickly and become immune to them because it's a simple action that's harder to foil. That's why alligators and crocs can deal with every bacterium that we've thrown at them so far, including antibiotic-resistant ones. Adam

    44. Re:superbugs by RockModeNick · · Score: 1

      Thanks for saying this for me, we also make the heads and feet into souvenirs.

    45. Re:superbugs by __aailob1448 · · Score: 1

      I did construe your original post about us killing gators correctly, if that's any consolation to you.

      And you make a good point about hypocrisy, though it is ultimately true that you could go live in the wildnerness or otherwise refuse to be part of the cycle, thus you are a small hypocrite, like pretty much all of us.

      However, you are wrong. We are not a patient species, we die fast and we seek exponentially more, with the ultimate goal of Godhood. Wipe out species, go on suicidal missions, commit unspeakable horrors and perform risky experiments. That's mankind for you.

      You may agree with Agent Smith that we are a virus, but at least things never get boring in the kingdom of man. That's something :)

    46. Re:superbugs by sjames · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Of course, getting half decent anti-histamine tablets is a problem now because someone might make crystal meth out of them. When perfectly legitimate drugs start to disappear because someone might mis-use them, everyone but the DEA loses.

    47. Re:superbugs by Neurotoxic666 · · Score: 1

      Has anyone every looked into vultures - after all, they eat dead carcasses, they must be exposed to quite astounding levels of bugs. Not to mention other things that eat dead bodies - ants, for example.

      You mean, like humans? I think we're already exposed to much more crap than other species. Bacteria, viruses, worms... that's bad for dogs. We created chemicals, medications, drugs, environments and other random stuff much worse than that, and we found a way to live. Somehow, we drink COW mil, and most of us feel OK with it. We eat dead animals daily and just cook them to get rid of the worst parts. Hey, we can even eat McDonald's and still breathe...

      My point is: eventhough some animals may SEEM impressive for their tolerance to this or that, Humans proved to be far better already.

      I bet alligators are trying to collect human intelligence to see how WE survive...

      --
      You are more than the sum of what you consume. Desire is not an occupation.
    48. Re:superbugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you make a good point about hypocrisy, though it is ultimately true that you could go live in the wildnerness or otherwise refuse to be part of the cycle, thus you are a small hypocrite, like pretty much all of us. Have a guilt complex do you? Not acting against something in each and every possible way does not make you a 'small hyprocrite'. It does indicate the degree of your convictions.

      Look it up. Apropos, it means 'crocodile tears' not just any tears.
    49. Re:superbugs by emilper · · Score: 1

      On one hand, humans don't have any super-antibiotics in their blood; on the other, talk about "so are humans?" with the people that got the super-bugs that are being trained right now in our hospitals or by hygiene-obsessed housewives.

      Now, I am not a biochemist, but it might be that the 'gator antibiotics are a bit smarter than the fungi poo derivatives we use now, and there might not be a way for bacteria to evolve around them without major restructuring of their innards.

    50. Re:superbugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shouldn't that be "Do you find your professor going on and on..."?

    51. Re:superbugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What it boils down to is that this reasearch is going to end up killing alligators

      Sounds like a win-win.

    52. Re:superbugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Komodo dragons won't care for that much though.

    53. Re:superbugs by Gat0r30y · · Score: 1

      Komodo's raised entirely in captivity do not have this problem (if you get bit, well its really not a very fun time but you probably won't die).

      --
      Prediction: The real iPhone killer is going to be sex robots from Japan. Think about it.
    54. Re:superbugs by compro01 · · Score: 1

      he mentioned in a parallel thread he's using "crocolisk" to generally refer to crocs and other closely related creatures.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    55. Re:superbugs by Kattspya · · Score: 1

      Why would you need pseudoephedrine in a histamine pill?

      It might pep you up but does it do anything else?

    56. Re:superbugs by sjames · · Score: 1

      It quickly dries up drippy sinuses and more or less counters the sleep inducing effects of the other ingrediants.

      While I can make a tea that does the same thing, I can't carry a second dose of tea in my pocket and take it at any convieniant water cooler or fountain.

  4. Have you seen where these things live? by Shivetya · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Let alone they eat about anything which doesn't eat them first.

    My only concern with this type of approach is how hamstrung will we get when the first protesters arrive? Can we replicate it or at least identify WHY it is so useful or different?

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    1. Re:Have you seen where these things live? by Malevolent+Tester · · Score: 2

      The first problem could provide a solution to the second - I'm sure people who are vehemently opposed to animal testing will be willing to volunteer their bodies, right?

      --
      If you haven't made a developer cry, you've wasted a day.
    2. Re:Have you seen where these things live? by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My only concern with this type of approach is how hamstrung will we get when the first protesters arrive?


      Possibly somewhat, but not as much as if the protesters hadn't been there all along to make sure the species did not become extinct, or too rare to study.

      You're probably too young to remember this, but alligator skin used to be quite stylish for handbags, shoes, wallets and the like. Wild populations can provide a sustainable source of goods like this so long as people don't take so many animals that the equilibrium breaks down and the population crashes. However, that's pretty much the inevitable course of events ever since society reached a sufficient technological level to respond to market opportunities with tools that make resource extraction orders of magnitude faster (and thus more profitable).

      You, as an alligator hunter, may be smart enough to know you'll make more in the long run by sustainable harvesting, but if your competition is sufficiently inbred, this sounds like hifalutin nonsense to them. When the idiots are making more money than the smart people, the near-idiots emulate the idiots, and pretty soon the people acting intelligently are the only ones who aren't in on the bonanza. At that point the intelligent choice is to act stupidly, because you maximize your long term return by grabbing a share of the breeding stock before even that is liquidated.
      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    3. Re:Have you seen where these things live? by value_added · · Score: 2, Funny

      My only concern with this type of approach is how hamstrung will we get when the first protesters arrive?

      No worries. The biochemists studying this work at Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge, and McNeese State University in Lake Charles, both in Louisiana. If you ever been to that part of the south, you'd know they'd rather eat the things only slightly more than they'd prefer shoot them, or use them to make handbags, belts and shoes.

      Can we replicate it or at least identify WHY it is so useful or different?

      If we can't, we'll have to turn to someone like Emeril Lagasse for an alternative, more spicy, use. At any rate, the article is fairly interesting. Maybe they should adopt a slogan like "Alligators: Good, and Good for You." to get things going.

    4. Re:Have you seen where these things live? by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 1

      We don't have to kill'em to use their blood. Hell, we've been studying horseshoe crabs' unique immune systems in the same fashion. Note that useful samples of blood can be (repeatedly) extracted from the crabs without killing them. From the Wikipedia article:

      "A single horseshoe crab can be worth $2,500 over its lifetime for periodic blood extractions..."

      If alligator blood is important enough then we could occasionally draw from specimens which are already in captivity.

      And for those of you who are making all of the croc meat jokes, keep in mind that croc meat is tough, stringy, and lacking in flavor compared to other meats.

    5. Re:Have you seen where these things live? by DougWebb · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm sure people who are vehemently opposed to animal testing will be willing to volunteer their bodies, right?

      Many would, but if you try to take them up on that, a whole other group of activists gets involved preventing that testing too.

      So, you think "Ok, I just won't test my product then", and a third group of activists pounces on you. There's just no way to get ahead without paying everyone off to make them happy and quiet.

    6. Re:Have you seen where these things live? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Ignore the anti animal testers.
      Especially since most of them are hypocrites.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    7. Re:Have you seen where these things live? by jtev · · Score: 1

      Yeah, they couldn't possibly use FARMED alligator for this. No, just not possible. I don't think they've been domesticated long enough for the wild and "tame" strains to be that different. Oh, and Aligator leather is making a comeback, because of the farming.

      --
      That which is done from love exists beyond good and evil
    8. Re:Have you seen where these things live? by tonyreadsnews · · Score: 1

      Actually, you just need to stick all 3 groups in the same room at that point. Evolution will take over at that point and tell you which is best for the society, right???

    9. Re:Have you seen where these things live? by MrNaz · · Score: 1

      You, sir, just solved my problem with people who protest against oil companies! I'll just hire them to ride me around on raised litters like a medieval king! Hey, I wouldn't be using any oil!

      --
      I hate printers.
    10. Re:Have you seen where these things live? by 0xABADC0DA · · Score: 1

      Their immune system kills HIV because it kills everything... viruses, bacteria, normal cells, ... spare tires.

      If it wasn't for their wolverine-esque regenerative powers their blood would instantly dissolve their own selves, like so much molecular acid.

    11. Re:Have you seen where these things live? by hey! · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, that's a clever argument. It lacks just one thing: any correlation to what actually happened.

      Farming was only economically possible after the population was sufficiently recovered that it was no longer in danger. The reason is that you can't un-ban products made from an endangered species until that species is either out of danger, or there is no credible prospect of stabilizing the wild population and controlling poaching.

      Farming isn't easy. I don't know any alligator farmers, but I do know people in the aquaculture industry. You need to know a lot of practical biology, you need to understand agricultural technology, you need to provide feed, shelter, veterinary services, manage the reproduction of your breeding stock. Most of all you need capital.

      Nobody with any business sense is going to invest in something like an alligator farm, if wild alligators are endangered, but still fairly easy for anybody with a little time on their hands to find. You're competing with people whose capital investment amounts to a rifle and whose marginal cost of production is a box of ammunition. What's more, you're selling a product that is tainted with their misdeeds.

      The time to start investing in the farm is when the population has rebounded to the point where they're for practical purposes, pests. People are less sensitive to seeing alligator products on the market, and while there may be some wild animals on the market, lawmakers have incentive to protect their state agriculture by preventing the market from being flooded with game.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    12. Re:Have you seen where these things live? by Mordac · · Score: 4, Informative

      And for those of you who are making all of the croc meat jokes, keep in mind that croc meat is tough, stringy, and lacking in flavor compared to other meats. Alligator meat from Louisana is darn good eats.

      Their legs can be treated like Buffalo Wings, very tasty.

      The tail is the most popular part, as thats used much like chicken tenders. Most people enjoy fried gator tail. You can go back further up on its back, for the tenderloin, but not as good.

      Last part I've tried is the ribs. Very similar to baby back ribs, its a white meat, no question about it when eating the ribs. Yes, the amount of meat to bone isn't all that good, but its good enough to enjoy a slow smoking.

      Alligator really is the other other white meat, and one of my favourites.
    13. Re:Have you seen where these things live? by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 2, Funny

      Gator meat isn't shot full of hormones and other shit. Problem is catching the damn things ;)

    14. Re:Have you seen where these things live? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just so everyone is straight, once protected Alligators blew through "endangered" and straight into "pest." There are plenty to go around.

    15. Re:Have you seen where these things live? by hey! · · Score: 1

      This is completely correct. I'd have no hesitation buying alligator meat -- it's quite good -- if it were offered in the supermarket.

      I'm just responding to the myth that things would be so much better if people with a conscience shut up and let business get on with building Utopia. Of course sometimes -- frequently even -- crusaders are misguided and high handed. That doesn't mean that protest plays no constructive role in society at all.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    16. Re:Have you seen where these things live? by mattsucks · · Score: 2, Funny

      Gator meat isn't shot full of hormones and other shit. Problem is catching the damn things ;)

      I can imagine two gators (on gator-dot?) having the same discussion about _us_.

    17. Re:Have you seen where these things live? by kitsunewarlock · · Score: 1

      Most of the animal activists still use products tested on animals. People in PETA use Insulin just as much as many Vegans.

      --
      Ginga no Rekshiya Mata Each page.
    18. Re:Have you seen where these things live? by avgjoe62 · · Score: 1

      You mean like my back yard, down here in the state that can't vote straight? Well, then yes, I have.

      --

      How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?

    19. Re:Have you seen where these things live? by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Why not invest? If wild alligators are endangered, a farm is a GREAT thing to invest in. Figure out how to breed them, release some back into the wild (they're never going to be "tame"), and boom, you have the experience and outlay to start making products from your farmed animals.

      BTW, they haven't been on the endangered list for 20 years. And, guess what? alligator farms do exist (have since 2 years BEFORE they were delisted), and guess what, you can buy real alligator skin boots as well as alligator steaks.

      How in the hell do completely moronic posts like this get modded up?

    20. Re:Have you seen where these things live? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure hey! is aware that alligator farms exist. Mostly b/c he said Farming was only economically possible after the population was sufficiently recovered that it was no longer in danger. And in fact, your linky that shows alligator farms only coming into existence 2 years before alligators were delisted tends to support his assertion: 2 years says to me that some savvy investors saw what was going on and jumped in early. Or do you really think that one (with possibly a few more), in 2 years, were responsible for the recovery of the species, which is pretty much what jtev claimed and hey! refuted?

    21. Re:Have you seen where these things live? by krayzkrok · · Score: 2, Informative

      The goal is to sequence the peptides involved, ultimately to synthesize them. It's not going to affect wild alligator populations, not that there's a dearth of them! Adam

  5. Hospital patient's new favorite catch phrase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Bite me."

  6. Hillbilly Research by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Funny
    It's amazing what can be discovered when you're looking for something else. I have an excerpt from the researcher's journal that I found on their site:

    "Johnson was busy cutting lines and snorting dolphin brains while playing Brain Age to see if that was increasing his mental capabilities. Heinz was freebasing hawk feathers and taking eye exams to check for increased vision. Me? I was mainlining alligator blood and hoping for some sort of super jaw strength and scales. As we were taking Williams to the hospital (he had grafted a mongoose tail to his ass and entered a pit of asps and vipers) I noticed that all my ulcers and sinuses had cleared up within the hour ..."
    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Hillbilly Research by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Hey if a radioactive spider can turn a geeky kid into Spiderman, anything is possible.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    2. Re:Hillbilly Research by sesshomaru · · Score: 1

      Indeed, but remember what happened to Spider-Man's friend, Dr. Curt Connors (Incidentally, does that represent prior art on the whole alligator antibodies thing?)

      --
      "MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
  7. Obligatory rounders quote by t0rc · · Score: 0

    The kid's got alligator blood. can't get rid of em...

  8. What's the cost? by MozeeToby · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The ability to heal quickly and fight off almost any infection would be a huge adaptation for any animal even without the territory battles. The fact that alligators are one of the few (only?) animals to evolve this adaptation indicates that it comes with a hefty price.

    The question is, can we leverage this adaptation for ourselves without incurring the price? If the price is energy expended to produce the ultra efficient immune system, that's fine; but if the price is directly tied to the effects themselves this may prove worthless.

    1. Re:What's the cost? by Ai+Olor-Wile · · Score: 5, Funny

      The cost is "being a goddamn ten foot long reptile." The cure is "put it in pills." Sheesh, some transhumanists...

    2. Re:What's the cost? by eln · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It could also be that the changes required to end up with an immune system like that are incredibly complex and may involve steps along the way that are not evolutionarily advantageous in most species, so the necessary sequence of evolutionary steps was not completed in most species. Or, it could just be that by random chance the mutations simply did not occur except in a few species, and did not stick for whatever reason in most cases where it did occur.

      To say that there must be some tradeoff implies that evolution's purpose is to produce the most perfectly adapted organism possible, when in fact evolution has no purpose at all. It is a series of mutations that tend to produce organisms that are well adapted, but certainly not perfectly adapted in most cases, to the particular environment they find themselves in.

      Or, it might turn out that the tradeoff is that you end up growing tough scaly skin that people like to make into boots and handbags, in which case I look forward to giving my wife a Gucci Human-skin bag in the near future.

    3. Re:What's the cost? by wattrlz · · Score: 1

      Perhaps mammals haven't evolved this, not because of it's cost, but because our immune systems function very differently than that of a crocodilian ? To develop this particular adaptation we'd need to completely re-evaluate our immune strategy. There just isn't enough evolutionary pressure to make us abandon a system that works as well as our current one does. Maybe we should research other animals that live in cesspools, eat carrion and offal; and fight daily territory battles... How do rat immune systems work?

    4. Re:What's the cost? by trybywrench · · Score: 3, Funny

      The fact that alligators are one of the few (only?) animals to evolve this adaptation indicates that it comes with a hefty price. The question is, can we leverage this adaptation for ourselves without incurring the price? yeah i don't even want to think about the copay
      --
      I came to the datacenter drunk with a fake ID, don't you want to be just like me?
    5. Re:What's the cost? by kencurry · · Score: 1

      the cost is being a damn fine belt or wallet.

      --
      sigs are for losers (except to point out that sigs are for losers)
    6. Re:What's the cost? by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      All very true, evolution does tend to push towards local maximums, not absolute maximums. However, by speculating that alligators have evolved this immune system because of their fierce terrotorial battles, the researchers imply that other reptiles do not share this adaptation, even though their immune systems are presumably quite similar.

      Can you think of any other adaptation that is as advantagous as this one (immunity from virtually all kinds of disease and infection) that isn't shared by a wide variety of species? The fact that alligators haven't diversified out into other ecological niches seems (to me) to indicate that there is a heavy cost associated.

    7. Re:What's the cost? by maxume · · Score: 1

      It absolutely is a trade off in the metabolic sense, given enough time, traits that are energy expensive and do not confer some advantage will at least become a minority in a population.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    8. Re:What's the cost? by slackoon · · Score: 1

      Just a thought, If aligators and crocs are some of the most succesful animals on the planet and some of the oldest 9which is scientific fact) then isn't the "price" worth it. Cocroaches will one day rule the world!

    9. Re:What's the cost? by wattrlz · · Score: 1
      TFA also mentioned crocodiles and from what I know about Caymans I think it's pretty likely they have similar adaptations as well. Komodo Dragons and other monitors also have a similar adaptation.

      Some other unique and inexplicably rare adaptations include the pinniped's ability to sleep a hemisphere at a time, the termite's ability to eat wood, and parthenogenesis.

    10. Re:What's the cost? by loafula · · Score: 1

      Ummm... what? Care to elaborate just exactly what this "price" is?

      --
      FOXTROT UNIFORM CHARLIE KILO
    11. Re:What's the cost? by Tibor+the+Hun · · Score: 1

      Well, seriously speaking, you'd think that alligators would have a lower copay because of their strong constitution then.

      Can we get a few of those that run for the president. McCain, is pretty old and leathery, though, so maybe he is one of them in a clever disguise. But on the other hand, alligators have always struck me as democrats, ever since childhood. Don't know why. (I should mention that I did spend a lot of time watching Wally the Alligator as a child.)

      --
      If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
    12. Re:What's the cost? by repapetilto · · Score: 1

      Humans do have an innate immune system, and an adaptive immune system on top of it. Ours is actually "more evolved" really in that its more efficient (doesn't destroy tissue due to every little infection). The alligator approach is more of a brute force method in that their innate immune system is apparently more robust and they sit around most of the time so they can automatically devote more energy to healing than us constantly tapping our feet mammals can.

    13. Re:What's the cost? by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      The ability to heal quickly and fight off almost any infection would be a huge adaptation for any animal even without the territory battles. The fact that alligators are one of the few (only?) animals to evolve this adaptation indicates that it comes with a hefty price.

      The question is, can we leverage this adaptation for ourselves without incurring the price? If the price is energy expended to produce the ultra efficient immune system, that's fine; but if the price is directly tied to the effects themselves this may prove worthless. We are talking about antibiotics here. Saying that extracting the chemical that prevents infections in alligators may have reptilian side effects is like saying that extracting penicillin from orange mold will give humans an orange pulpy peel (with fur).

      I believe that what we will see from this type of research is a pill that is not much different than what the many different antibiotics do today, only newer and stronger and kills viruses. The side affects will have to be judged, but they will be worked out. For example, leaving a metallic taste in your mouth or killing all the beneficial bacteria in your digestive tract is a small price to pay when compared to... say... a painful and miserable death caused by drowning in your own mucus!

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    14. Re:What's the cost? by omfglearntoplay · · Score: 1

      The theories I heard on this via some TV shows is that b/c crocs and their kin live in super "dirty" swampy water in many habitats + the chances of getting hurt were high for different reasons (fighting, whatever), the only way to survive was to have super immune systems. Get a cut and submerge it in a swamp for about 30 seconds to see how long you avoid infection. It was just evolution at work the way they presented it.

    15. Re:What's the cost? by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      I'm still in the process of finishing the The Origin of Species (so forgive me if I'm wrong), but natural selection isn't always as deliberate as you imply. Snakes have hideously powerful venom because it evolved to kill reptiles, not mammals with our much faster metabolisms (really bad for us).

      Who knows what wacky serious of evolutionary events resulted in this immune system? Hell, it could be as simple as having survived as a species for long enough to evolve advanced features.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    16. Re:What's the cost? by breeze95 · · Score: 1

      The ability to heal quickly and fight off almost any infection would be a huge adaptation for any animal even without the territory battles. The fact that alligators are one of the few (only?) animals to evolve this adaptation indicates that it comes with a hefty price. The question is, can we leverage this adaptation for ourselves without incurring the price? If the price is energy expended to produce the ultra efficient immune system, that's fine; but if the price is directly tied to the effects themselves this may prove worthless. What price has the alligator paid? Also, sharks have excellent immune systems as well. What do sharks and crocodilians have in common. They both have been on this planet a long long time. Crocs have evolved 200 million years ago and sharks 400 million years. That's a long time for their immune system to develop; so, It comes as no surprise that two of the oldest vertebrae creatures have the most robust immune systems.
    17. Re:What's the cost? by sjames · · Score: 1

      All of this is reletive. Evolution need not purposly seek perfection to eliminate a trait that confers some advantage at a huge cost.

      For example, for most species, an immune system that provides absolute protection from all disease will NOT provide for survival if the cost is tripling the needed caloric intake. (I said MOST species, modern humans, particularly Americans might be an exception there).

  9. Gator-aid? by thatseattleguy · · Score: 5, Funny

    Good for what ails ya.

    'nuff said.

    1. Re:Gator-aid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can just imagine hearing Dick Van Dyke on Diagnosis Murder..
      "Nurse, this patient needs an urgent transfusion of alligator blood, make it snappy..er, I mean stat!"

    2. Re:Gator-aid? by nomessages · · Score: 1

      Insert obvious jokes referencing "The Waterboy" and "Idiocracy." ;)

      --
      Bitter, not morose.
  10. Tretonin? by DCGaymer · · Score: 1

    Finally, the Tau'ri get their own tretonin?

  11. evolution by timelorde · · Score: 1

    Scientists believe that this is an evolutionary adaptation to promote quick wound healing, as alligators are often injured during fierce territorial battles."

    By extension, this would mean that my brother and I are immune to just about everything.

    1. Re:evolution by JeanBaptiste · · Score: 1

      you've been fighting for tens of millions of years? wow.

    2. Re:evolution by maxch · · Score: 1

      Epic Battle Of The Immortal Brothers?

    3. Re:evolution by ShiNoKaze · · Score: 1

      You'd think some kind of outcome would have resulted by now... It'd get kind boring after a while.

    4. Re:evolution by repapetilto · · Score: 1

      You've obviously never been involved in an epic battle. Look at god and satan. Are they bored?

    5. Re:evolution by ShiNoKaze · · Score: 1

      Please, that couldn't have been going on for more than, what? 10,000 years? Max?

    6. Re:evolution by repapetilto · · Score: 1

      Depending on who you ask anywhere from 5121 years 12 months and 360 days ago to 77.76 trillion years ago

  12. zzz by apodyopsis · · Score: 1

    Nice to see another animal joining the tiger, rhino and elephant in helping mankind survive and prosper.

    Still, I'm sure as a sensible and mature species we can do the right thing and coexist happy with our newfound antibiotic donors. It would be ironic if after they finally disappear from the wild (and they are one of those species that has been around for many many millions of years) they survive only in medicine farms.

    sigh.

    1. Re:zzz by berashith · · Score: 4, Interesting

      check out the horseshoe crab. They were going to be completely destroyed until the medical industry offered to pay more for keeping them alive than the fishermen were paying to use them as bait. The species will actually continue only because of their medical uses. Maybe this will help.

      There are already decent protections for legal hunting gator, and this may increase the pressure against poaching.

  13. Why evolution? by AutopsyReport · · Score: 1, Informative

    Scientists believe that this is an evolutionary adaptation to promote quick wound healing, as alligators are often injured during fierce territorial battles.

    Or conversely, alligators as a species have always had these antibiotics. Why is it that every interesting or perplexing feature about a species must be somehow attributed to, or be a product of, evolution?

    I'm as much a believer in evolution as the next, but I've grown a bit tired of every amazing discovery being associated with evolution.

    --

    For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother.

    1. Re:Why evolution? by securitytech · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you "believe" in evolution, how could any trait NOT be a product of it?

    2. Re:Why evolution? by BigDumbAnimal · · Score: 1

      Or conversely, alligators as a species have always had these antibiotics. This is what evolution says. Anything that is came about over a long period of time. There is no 'always' with evolution.

      At least the FA got this part right:

      Scientists believe that this is an evolutionary adaptation...
    3. Re:Why evolution? by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      Ummm, What? If you are "as much a believer in evolution as the next" how do you propose that "alligators as a species have always had these antibiotics". If you beleive in evolution, then alligators as a species haven't always existed. In fact, according to evolution they probably have a common ancestor with nearly every other animal on the planet.

      The article isn't saying that they just recently evolved this immune system if that's what you are trying to say. Mearly that we have discovered this new adaptation and will probably try to take advantage of the discoveries that evolution has made.

    4. Re:Why evolution? by porcupine8 · · Score: 1
      alligators as a species have always had these antibiotics

      Okay, then their most recent ancestors evolved it.

      Either you think that all species got their present form due to natural selection, or you don't. You can't say "Weeeelllll, sure, some did, but this particular species probably just sprang up fully-formed out of the ether."

      Well, okay, you can say that, but don't expect scientists to agree.

      --
      Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
    5. Re:Why evolution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm as much a believer in evolution as the next, but I've grown a bit tired of every amazing discovery being associated with evolution. I believe the real root of your concern, which I share to some degree, is that oftentimes people will be quick to graft on an explanation based on evolutionary theory to any peculiar feature of an organism, without any testing. Thus, one could conceivably concoct several different interpretations based on evolutionary theory of the origins of any feature of an organism.

      However, and this is the key point, just because one can come up with an arbitrary interpretation, does not mean that an explanation grounded in evolutionary theory is incorrect. A more disciplined and principled approach would be needed, that's all.

      Since every organism is subject to selection pressures, evolutionary theory indicates that any structural or functional feature of an organism arose as a result of conferring some benefit to the organism across many generations.

      Or to put it another way, if a perplexing feature of an organism is not attributed to evolution, to what can it be attributed? Evolution is precisely a way to account for such features.

      Be wary of doubting this ... that way lies creationism!
    6. Re:Why evolution? by hoggoth · · Score: 2, Funny

      > Or conversely, alligators as a species have always had these antibiotics. Why is it that every interesting or perplexing feature about a species must be somehow attributed to, or be a product of, evolution?
      > I'm as much a believer in evolution as the next, but I've grown a bit tired of every amazing discovery being associated with evolution.

      Because every interesting, perlexing, or boring feature of a species is of course a product of evolution.
      The first single cell didn't have a powerful immune system. Alligators do. Somewhere along the way the branch of life leading to alligators, they evolved a powerful immune system. Why does that characterisation bother you?

      Perhaps I misunderstood you, and you were reacting to the common tendency for the news to report some simplistic off-the-cuff guess as to what environmental pressure led to a certain feature evolving. In this case, territorial fights=super immunity. I heard a story on the news this morning about how less sleep leads to increased feelings of hunger and the reporter added, 'this makes sense in evolutionary terms because clubbing rhinos for food all day takes a lot of energy and increased hunger will help replenish that energy' huh? wtf?

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    7. Re:Why evolution? by thanatos_x · · Score: 1

      Probably because everything that exists today was influenced by everything that took place in the past. Some traits are probably just random mutations that neither increased nor decreased the chances for survival - human handedness, hair/eye color, ear shape... these have few impacts on survival save some extreme conditions. Until science can come up with a good reason why most of us are right handed, I doubt one could really call it evolution, rather random mutation.

      An advanced immune system or rapid regeneration is certainly under the category of "increases chances for survival" This would be consistent with an evolved trait.

      Since we've found few creatures with such traits, despite it being obviously beneficial, it stands to reason that there is a probable cause for such an evolution, different from other animals. Fast wound healing/superior immune systems would be a fair evolution of something that got injured frequently and was often immersed in unclean water.

      --
      I am not an expert. If I am misled in something, please correct me.
    8. Re:Why evolution? by NIckGorton · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Or conversely, alligators as a species have always had these antibiotics. Why is it that every interesting or perplexing feature about a species must be somehow attributed to, or be a product of, evolution? Um, because every perplexing feature of a species is a product of evolution. Unless you feel that "alligators as a species [sic]" somehow were magically created with the wave of some supernatural creator's wand, then there is no way that they can have 'always been there' except as a product of the evolution of the genus.

      I'm as much a believer in evolution as the next, but I've grown a bit tired of every amazing discovery being associated with evolution. No you aren't. You are a creationist theo-tard who is trying to utilize feigned credibility as a real scientists to make his ignorant claims have some reasonableness.

      Thanks for playing. And by the way, alligators are a genus, not a species.
    9. Re:Why evolution? by hey! · · Score: 1

      I'm as much a believer in evolution as the next, but I've grown a bit tired of every amazing discovery being associated with evolution.


      It's not so much a matter of belief but utility. This is how you use a scientific theory like evolution.

      Evolution is such an important biological concept, that every well designed study which either relates to breeding populations of organisms or to traits which might promote the survival of individuals within such a population sets out to disprove natural selection. It's not that anybody seriously believes natural selection is wrong, it's just the null hypothesis.

      This is a lot like Douglas Adams' idea of how you learn to fly: you throw yourself at the ground and miss. In biology, you set out doing your damnedest to disprove evolution, with the hope that you'll fail in an interesting way.

      What is irksome to you, I believe, is the use of evolution as a doctrine rather than a theory. Evolution is a very useful theory; it's no more useful as a doctrine than any other doctrine.
      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    10. Re:Why evolution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it turns out everything alive can be attributed to, or is a product of, evolution (unless you believe in strict creationism, then you can say whatever you want). I don't understand what your problem is with the statement. If alligators as a species have always had these antibiotics, then they came from an ancestral species, which evolved them for some other purpose - evolution strikes again.

    11. Re:Why evolution? by NIckGorton · · Score: 1

      Probably because everything that exists today was influenced by everything that took place in the past. Some traits are probably just random mutations that neither increased nor decreased the chances for survival - human handedness, hair/eye color, ear shape... these have few impacts on survival save some extreme conditions. Until science can come up with a good reason why most of us are right handed, I doubt one could really call it evolution, rather random mutation. No, its still evolution. Even if we don't know the utility of something, that is no reason to believe that its not the product of evolution. For example, quite recently we discovered the reason why we have an appendix (other than to make my life as an ER doctor a living hell.) However 5 years ago, if you asked any evolutionary biologist they would have still said that the appendix is a product of evolution. It would be like suggesting that gravity wasn't really there until Newton described it.

      Of course that just made my tee shirt with the picture of a colon with an appendix saying: "Intelligent design? OK, show me the elegant design of my appendix" just that much more cool.
    12. Re:Why evolution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [Arbitrary invisible man in the sky] is the simpleton's "god". Don't understand how something works or was developed? [Arbitrary invisible man in the sky] did it!

    13. Re:Why evolution? by AutopsyReport · · Score: 1

      Some clarification: I wasn't trying to suggest that the characteristics of an alligator are not a result of evolution, because of course, as some have pointed out, everything is rooted in evolution.

      What I was trying to say is that it's possible that the alligator had always had these antibiotics since it's initial state of being, and that it didn't obtain these antibiotics somewhere along its course of life.

      To repeat: everything about alligators is a product of evolution, but it's entirely plausible they've had the antibiotics since their "beginning". The article suggests that maybe the antibiotics were obtained as a result of their environment (fighting, etc.), but I'm suggesting it's possible they've always had them.

      Hence my criticism of linking everything directly to evolution (evolution in the sense that it must have evolved a characteristic after its first "beginning"). I don't know if this confuses the matter worse, but I hope not.

      --

      For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother.

    14. Re:Why evolution? by vonhammer · · Score: 1

      I'm as much a believer in evolution as the next, but I've grown a bit tired of every amazing discovery being associated with evolution. In the days when Sussman was a novice, Minsky once came to him as he sat hacking at the PDP-11.
      "What are you doing?", asked Minsky.
      "I am training a randomly wired neural net to play Tic-Tac-Toe" Sussman replied.
      "Why is the net wired randomly?", asked Minsky.
      "I do not want it to have any preconceptions of how to play", Sussman said.
      Minsky then shut his eyes.
      "Why do you close your eyes?", Sussman asked his teacher.
      "So that the room will be empty."
      At that moment, Sussman was Enlightened.
  14. I guess what's old is new again. by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 3, Informative
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4155522.stm

    About three and a half years ago he tested alligator blood and pinpointed why these animals were so resistant to infection. Alligators and crocodiles, like humans, have a natural defence system against invading bacteria, viruses and fungi, which involves a group of proteins called the complement system. When Dr Merchant exposed the alligator blood to pathogens such as HIV, West Nile Virus and E Coli, it started to kill them. "It turns out that this complement system is much more effective than ours.
    and that was already 3 years old.
    1. Re:I guess what's old is new again. by maxch · · Score: 1

      Maybe its some kind of ritual, like before slaughtering a virgin and drinking it's blood, they need to announce to the media that alligators can cure us all... I guess we'll need to wait another three years to find out.

    2. Re:I guess what's old is new again. by krayzkrok · · Score: 5, Informative

      I made the initial discovery with saltwater crocodiles back in 1999, and my colleague Dr Gill Diamond named the peptide "crocodillin". So this is really a decade old now!

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/680840.stm

      Adam Britton

  15. oh yeah, it's great for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    just not so good for your health to try to collect it

    1. Re:oh yeah, it's great for you by es330td · · Score: 1

      Every rose has its thorns...

  16. Strong immune system vs evolution rate by GargamelSpaceman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Gators/Crocs are famous for having not changed much since the time of the dinosaurs.


    I wonder if since they have a very strong immune system that kills viruses etc so well, if they have not denied themselves the opportunity to incorporate useful viral dna and bacterial plasmids into their own dna. It would be interesting to see if they have a different amount of viral origin genes in their genomes than other animals.

    --
    ...
    1. Re:Strong immune system vs evolution rate by MetricT · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I can't help but wonder if they haven't changed since the age of the dinosaurs *because* of their strong immune system. Viruses cause a lot of DNA mutations for natural selection to work with. If your immune system is efficient at killing viruses, that cuts off an entire avenue for helpful mutations to enter the genome. Their source of mutations has been reduced to cosmic rays. Overgeneralized, but I hope you get the idea.

      Maybe we should start looking at other dinosaur-era lifeforms and seeing what's in their immune system.

    2. Re:Strong immune system vs evolution rate by Mordac · · Score: 1

      If they didn't have this type of immune system there's no way they would have survived all the super-bugs that have appeared and wiped out countless other species.

      The world is nothing at all like it was when they started roaming the Earth, and yet they are still here. Its not too surprising to find out it wasn't just their excellent killing ability and family raising techniques, but also a powerful immune system.

    3. Re:Strong immune system vs evolution rate by hey+hey+hey · · Score: 1
      Gators/Crocs are famous for having not changed much since the time of the dinosaurs.

      Well, they haven't changed much on the outside. For all we know, they went from cold-blooded to warm-blooded then back to cold-blooded, with an odd couple of million years using kerosene for blood. None of that would show up in the fossil record.

    4. Re:Strong immune system vs evolution rate by KevinIsOwn · · Score: 1

      Well, they haven't changed much on the outside. For all we know, they went from cold-blooded to warm-blooded then back to cold-blooded, with an odd couple of million years using kerosene for blood. None of that would show up in the fossil record.
      You don't seem to know a hell of a lot about this biology, do you.
    5. Re:Strong immune system vs evolution rate by sunwolf · · Score: 1

      Tuataras are similarly unchanging throughout the years, but they're evolving faster than most other animals.

    6. Re:Strong immune system vs evolution rate by krayzkrok · · Score: 1

      That's a key reason the alligator work is so interesting, because it mirrors the findings from saltwater crocodiles and suggests these peptides had evolved in a common ancestor. It would be interesting to check birds, which share the nearest common ancestor with the Crocodylia, to see what similarities in their immune system exist.

      Adam

  17. In that vein by explosivejared · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'll tell you what could go wrong:

    evolutionary adaptation to promote quick wound healing

    An angry Wolverine, the four horseman Wolverine to be exact, sues for prior art, and on a technicality gains control of the entire human population's genome. This would quite literally usher in "the" Apocolypse.

    --
    I got a catholic block.
  18. Hanging around ... by arhar · · Score: 1

    ... hanging around... The kid's got alligator blood!

  19. Skiffy by grassy_knoll · · Score: 1

    Ok, who thinks the Biochemists from McNeese State University have been watching a wee bit too many Sci Fi Pictures original films?

    "next tonight... MANGATOR!"

    [badum-ching]

  20. Alligator blood? by lpangelrob · · Score: 4, Funny

    Alligator blood? Man, that's cold.

    1. Re:Alligator blood? by Notquitecajun · · Score: 1

      Ow, that hurt. STOP. Mod -1+1 goodbadpun.

    2. Re:Alligator blood? by Pentalon · · Score: 1

      If we can't get it from their tears, we'll take it from their blood.

    3. Re:Alligator blood? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      chyeck chyeck chyeck - all night he chyeck. He's gote alligyator blood!

  21. evolution goes wrong by someone1234 · · Score: 1

    How long will these alligators survive, now that their blood became worthy?

    --
    Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
    1. Re:evolution goes wrong by maxume · · Score: 1

      Forever?

      If you doubt me, I would start by pointing to those other highly successful friends of man, cows and dogs.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:evolution goes wrong by gnuman99 · · Score: 1

      HAHAHA!!

      Oh man, you've made my day. I thought I saw dumb replies but this got to top the rest of the ignorance. What do you think they researchers will do?? Grab them all and drain them of blood??

      Here's what will happen,

        1. they go to a zoo or similar controller place and get some blood samples. Or grab a few specimens for their own little "zoo"
        2. work on the blood samples for weeks/months
        3. go back to step #1 for as long as necessary for #4 to be available
        4. get some result

      This is not "wearing alligator shoes prevents cancer" or other claim. What do you think people will do? Inject themselves with alligator blood? Go ahead! I dare you!!

  22. strange brew that's also good for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That would be Kombucha, which is much easier to obtain/use than 'gator blood.

  23. Maybe because you have read about it before: by Maddog+Batty · · Score: 4, Informative
    --
    wot no sig
    1. Re:Maybe because you have read about it before: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I hope they meant some sort of antibody a croc's immune system produces kills HIV, because HIV can't live in a cold blooded creature anyway.

    2. Re:Maybe because you have read about it before: by cpricejones · · Score: 2, Informative

      And of course several species are going extinct. Will this finding change anything? Probably not once the blood has been well studied such that the components can be synthesized.

      Here is a good link for you (http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/cnhc/csl.html) if you're interested in all the different species. I imagine that the differences in their immune systems would also be of some benefit.

    3. Re:Maybe because you have read about it before: by krayzkrok · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes, that's the research I was involved in. We actually first discovered this way back in 1999! We tested serum activity (and lysed leucocytes) in Australian saltwater crocodiles and later in 2002 in Australian freshwater crocodiles. We called this antimicrobial peptide "crocodillin". The work from 2005 comes from a project I did with Mark Merchant on saltwater crocs where we tried to learn more about the antimicrobial and antiviral activity. This latest media release is essential the same as the previous work, except this time with American alligators because Mark has more of them in the backyard than he does saltwater crocs. Adam

  24. Rounders by Embrionic · · Score: 1

    "Hangin around...hangin around...kid's got alligator blood"

  25. Cost of Complexity is a Myth by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There was very recent research that was quite extensive that showed this cost of complexity in evolution is a myth. I don't know why you think it has to come at a cost, it just so happens that alligators needed it to live in their conditions and with their temperaments.

    You can sit here all day and question why we don't have some of the obvious advantage traits that any other animal has and the answer is simple: we didn't require it. If humans needed it and didn't have it, we wouldn't be around.

    Explain your logic on why this must come at a price? The random evolution happened in alligators and may be present in other animals (or extinct relatives).

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Cost of Complexity is a Myth by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying that the complexity of the immune system implies a cost to the organism, I am saying that this adaptation is so ridiculously advantagious that there must be some cost or it would be much more common (Of course, this conjecture falls apart if the adaptation is more common than the article implies).

      Don't believe that this adaptation is that advantagious? Infections deseases are responsible for 20% of human deaths, second only to heart disease; and that is even with modern antibiotics.

    2. Re:Cost of Complexity is a Myth by eldavojohn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm not saying that the complexity of the immune system implies a cost to the organism, I am saying that this adaptation is so ridiculously advantagious that there must be some cost or it would be much more common (Of course, this conjecture falls apart if the adaptation is more common than the article implies). And yet, here you and I are with opposable thumbs and an increased Broca's Region of our brain ... why don't other animals have these ridiculously obvious advantages? Evolution is random and only reacts to the environment of the organism.

      Don't believe that this adaptation is that advantagious? Infections deseases are responsible for 20% of human deaths, second only to heart disease; and that is even with modern antibiotics. A death rate of 20% is inflated because we know how to circumvent so many other forms of death. I'm sure prior to civilized humans, we were killed by many many other things. Not to mention that low death rates can lead to famine and ecosystem failure. How do you know we're not dooming the earth by ensuring everyone lives to age 70 and has 2.4 children? The human population is not kept in check the same way it used to be because of modern antibiotics.
      --
      My work here is dung.
    3. Re:Cost of Complexity is a Myth by geckofiend · · Score: 1
      The random evolution happened in alligators and may be present in other animals (or extinct relatives).

      Evolution is not random. Mutation is but evolution isn't.

      Don't fall into the ID trap

    4. Re:Cost of Complexity is a Myth by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      I'll try explaining why it may come at a price.

      Consider two bacteria. One has the minimal DNA needed to survive, while the other carries a huge extra section giving it the ability to digest aspartame, vinyl, and old magazines.
      They are living in a nice sugar solution, so they can divide and replicate as fast as they want to.
      The bacterium with the shorter DNA replicates faster. It outcompetes the bacterium with the extra DNA, and in 50 generations it represents 99.999% of the population.
      When the environmental niche that the bacteria are in changes -- which is to say when they use up all the food -- one of two things will happen. If they happen to be living in a container made of vinyl or old magazines, suddenly the bacterium with the extra DNA will thrive and the other will starve. But if that's not the case they'll both starve together while trying to find something else to eat, and chances are that the one with the extra DNA will die off first.

      Carrying any extra genetic material is a gamble because it increases your suseptibility to unfavorable mutation and slows you down, but it's necessary to maintain some extra material so you'll increase your adaptive flexibility. That is a major driving force for evolution: it's pushing in both ways at the same time, which greatly decreases the reaction time of a heterogenous population to a new situation (at the cost of the lives of the large majority of the population).

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    5. Re:Cost of Complexity is a Myth by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      I think it would be better to describe evolution as a statistical process. A genetic improvement doesn't guarantee survival, it merely improves the odds.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    6. Re:Cost of Complexity is a Myth by GargamelSpaceman · · Score: 1

      Those damn antibiotics

      --
      ...
    7. Re:Cost of Complexity is a Myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet, here you and I are with opposable thumbs and an increased Broca's Region of our brain ... why don't other animals have these ridiculously obvious advantages? Evolution is random and only reacts to the environment of the organism. Well, the opposable thumbs are largely due to our evolutionary path, and analogues are found here and there with little "cost," the human brain does impose a *MASSIVE* cost to develop. It requires huge amounts of energy and development time -- it's why we take so long to reach adulthood. It's a good thing we nurse our young, too, or those brains would have to develop even slower to be able to resist the frequent disruptions of energy being supplied whenever food was late or unavailable.

        It's true that not everything has a "cost" from an evolutionary standpoint, but that doesn't make the opposite true, that nothing has a cost at all. Extra limbs? Takes more time to grow, costs you. Bigger than your ancestors? Same thing. Stronger without being bigger? Needs more energy per pound of muscle, so you need a food-rich environment. Etc., etc.

        - mantar
    8. Re:Cost of Complexity is a Myth by TheWizardOfCheese · · Score: 1

      Evolution is not random - that is the entire basis of the theory! Perhaps you were thinking of mutations, the raw material of evolution. Mutations are not necessarily random - some are favoured for chemical reasons - but it is true that they are not directed by their evolutionary consequences.

      In general, phenotypical features - height, strength, brain size, immune system, or whatever - bear a cost. Whatever resources are invested in such a feature are not available to be invested in something else, like reproduction. Therefore features are selected against unless their costs can be supported by a net increase in reproductive success.

      This has got nothing to do with "complexity", and in fact is easiest to see in simple cases. For instance, a certain type of liver fluke lives part of its life cycle in a certain type of snail. The snail is protected by a hard shell; the snail invests resources in the shell because without it, its life expectency would be reduced to the point that it would produce fewer new snails, even though it would be able to spend its shell resources on making more snails. When infected by liver flukes, the snail's shell grows thicker! Its life expectency then increases, but its reproductive success declines because the marginal benefit of the thicker shell does not pay for the marginal reduction in rate of offspring. However, the reproductive success of the liver fluke increases - it cares more about the survival of this particular snail than its offspring. This is what Dawkins calls the "extended phenotype", action on the snail's body by the liver fluke's genes. But the problem is not that evolution is "random" and just happened not to come up with a thick-shelled snail; the snail already has the potential for thicker shells and the thickness is determined by reproductive success, not chance.

      Now, back to the supposed advantages of opposable thumbs and big brains that you tout. It is easy to believe that now, looking at a world that currently has 6 billion people in it. But humans (genus Homo) with big brains and opposable thumbs have been around for a long time, over a million years. Almost all of them have left no descendents on the face of the earth. Sapiens itself has been around over 100,000 years, but needed an unusually mild and stable interglacial to fulfill its potential; it has really only been unusually successful in the Holocene. This, and the lack of any surviving collateral lineages, demonstrate that big brains and opposable thumbs have generally not been very advantageous; they've really only worked well in the context of sapiens during the Holocene.

      --

      "The good reader is a rarer swan than the good writer."
    9. Re:Cost of Complexity is a Myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Infectious disease may cause 20% of human deaths, but as long as the other 80% can get along reasonably well, at least enough to reproduce, there is no natural pressure for extraordinary adaptations for the immune system. If we lived, slept, drank and ate while submerged in swamp water 24/7, I imagine we would need a pretty strong immune system too. If there is any 'cost' associated with such an adaptation, I think it probably came in the form of a lot of dead, weaker alligators many millennia ago.

    10. Re:Cost of Complexity is a Myth by xenocide2 · · Score: 1

      Evolution is not random - that is the entire basis of the theory! Perhaps you were thinking of mutations, the raw material of evolution. Mutations are not necessarily random - some are favoured for chemical reasons - but it is true that they are not directed by their evolutionary consequences.

      I think you're splitting hairs here. Most people would consider Monte Carlo algorithms random, even though there's some form of order being imposed through constraints etc.

      --
      I Browse at +4 Flamebait

      Open Source Sysadmin

  26. There may be no cost by Devin+Jeanpierre · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The fact that alligators are one of the few (only?) animals to evolve this adaptation indicates that it comes with a hefty price.
    There is no such indication. There may be a cost, but that's not indicated by the evidence. It may just be that most/all other animals didn't have the specific circumstances that would start a chain of mutations leading to this. It could simply be that alligators are far more likely to get injured, and therefore when this mutation occurred, it much more likely to survive than it would be in animals without such a high rate of (possibly survivable-- if you're trapped, you're trapped, no matter if you could recover from the injuries or not) injury. It just might be that simply needing a better immune system isn't enough to make this evolve, or it might be that this effect is from a combination of genes that individually mainly benefit healing. I am not an evolutionary biologist, or a biologist at all, but I think that it is premature to conclude that alligators are of the few to have this due to some cost. Especially important is that, since we only just discovered it in alligators, it may exist more widely than just a "few" animals.
    --
    -Devin Jeanpierre
  27. it's new healthy food! by dawnsnow · · Score: 1

    So, why don't we all have it as a regular meals? http://thimg.dreamwiz.com/upfile/200804/1207481786152_1.jpg

    1. Re:it's new healthy food! by Speedracer1870 · · Score: 1

      Cause they can be fast buggers. You have to catch it without it catching you first. But seriously, they are some good eatin'.

  28. In LOUISIANA... by Notquitecajun · · Score: 2, Funny

    Just to point out, McNeese State University, where the study was done, is in Lake Charles, LA. That's in South Louisiana. Which is mostly swampland, or close to it.

    Those kids KNOWS gators. Which are tasty, by the way, and becoming a borderline nuisance down in South LA because the @#$%ing damnyankee tourists keep feedin' em and dey come up to de pirogue lookin' for de crap-touristee food and you gotta whack 'em wit' de paddle and dey bite de paddle and you got...woah, sorry.

    All that goes to say....Gator sausage is GOOD eatin'.

  29. Homo Sapiens v2.0 by -Tango21- · · Score: 1
    Years ago, it was discovered that their "blood is also remarkable in its affinity for oxygen, carrying more in oxygen rich areas, and releasing it more quickly in oxygen deprived areas." Source: http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/cnhc/cbd-faq-q5.htm

    If people could get their blood infused (at least temporarily) with alligator blood it may be also used during surgery on humans to decrease the chance of infection and lessen the need for blood flow. Then, if the infusion could be permanent...

  30. The Cajun Cure by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 2, Funny
    Old family recipe:
    • 2 oz. fresh gator blood
    • 2 oz. rum 151 proof or stronger
    • splash hot pepper sauce
    • serve straight up with or without raw egg
    Cures what ails you.
    --
    Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    1. Re:The Cajun Cure by Notquitecajun · · Score: 1

      "Splash hot pepper sauce."

      Pfff. Lightweight.

      And let me NARROW that down for you. Tobasco, Krystal, or Louisiana Hot Sauce. Or choose your local south LA brand or whatever you made up yourself.

    2. Re:The Cajun Cure by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 1

      "Splash hot pepper sauce." Pfff. Lightweight. And let me NARROW that down for you. Tobasco, Krystal, or Louisiana Hot Sauce. Or choose your local south LA brand or whatever you made up yourself. Meh! I prefer my homebrew habanero/cayenne blend.
      --
      Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
  31. their system may be too different by circletimessquare · · Score: 1, Interesting

    alligators also:

    1. eat putrid rotten food
    2. live in oxygen deprived standing water
    3. have been doing so for hundreds of millions of years

    therefore, their immune systems should be absolutely spectacular

    however, some of their adaptations might be more systematic. that is, rather than fight off infecting agents, they may simply let infectious agents traverse their organ systems with impunity, without any resistance, and also without offering any safe harbor. in other words, it is one thing to have a fanatical vigilant guard at your front door who lets no one in, it is another thing to let anyone in your house who wanders by, simply offering nothing inside worth stealing

    i would suspect therefore that a lot of the alligator's adaptations to remaining infection free are so very fundamentally different from our body's approach to infection as to be inapplicable to how our bodies approach the subject. they're way of life is so different and ancient as compared to ours, some of their adaptations may be inapplicable to our own bodies

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:their system may be too different by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 1

      >>they may simply let infectious agents traverse their organ systems with impunity, without any resistance, and also without offering any safe harbor.

      FTA-

      "About three and a half years ago he tested alligator blood and pinpointed why these animals were so resistant to infection. Alligators and crocodiles, like humans, have a natural defence system against invading bacteria, viruses and fungi, which involves a group of proteins called the complement system. When Dr Merchant exposed the alligator blood to pathogens such as HIV, West Nile Virus and E Coli, it started to kill them. "It turns out that this complement system is much more effective than ours."

      I think that the alligator blood may be more like your armed guard than anything.

      -b

      --
      No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
  32. Dr.Curt Connors would back it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dr.Curt Connors would back it.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lizard_(comics)/The Lizard

  33. Endangered species by s_p_oneil · · Score: 1

    Something tells me we'll have to put them back on the endangered species list. We just recently took them off of it.

    1. Re:Endangered species by Notquitecajun · · Score: 1

      Ummmm....no. You may be thinking crocodiles. Alligators are actually becoming a nuisance, and you can legally hunt them with a tag (something like one a year, depending). They are ALL OVER THE FREAKING PLACE sometimes, because of lack of - or limitation of predators and the tourists keep feedin' em.

    2. Re:Endangered species by s_p_oneil · · Score: 1

      Ummmm....yes. I was living in Florida when they removed it from the endangered species list.

      "Status: First listed as an endangered species in 1967, the American alligator was removed from the endangered species list in 1987 after the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service pronounced a complete recovery of the species."

    3. Re:Endangered species by Notquitecajun · · Score: 1

      Gotcha. Yeah, "complete recovery" all right.

  34. Komodo dragons too by cats-paw · · Score: 2, Informative

    Turns out Komodo dragons have a fairly lethal cocktail of bacteria in their saliva.
    Kills prey that manages to escape their immediate grasp, then they use smell to track it down.
    Naturally they need protection from this goo too.

    Couldn't find a better link than this:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12238371/

    --
    Absolute statements are never true
  35. On advantageous traits by PIPBoy3000 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What's funny is that the whole concept of advantageous traits is a shifting thing. I listened to some NPR reporters asking why native trees from New York had big thorns on them. It turns out they're very similar to thorns on some trees in Africa, which evolved to minimize predation by elephants. Well, it turns out these trees from New York evolved these spikes to fend of mammoths, though it seems like a silly waste of energy now.

    The trees that didn't have the spikes were all eaten. The alligators who couldn't heal quickly all died. That's evolution for ya.

    1. Re:On advantageous traits by skaet · · Score: 1

      That's Natural Selection, not Evolution...

      The trees without spikes were all eaten, yes, but this is natural selection propogating the evolution evident in the other trees. How do you tell the difference? Evolution doesn't control how external forces (ie. predators, weather, etc) act on the organism whereas these forces do have a measure of control over the major evolutionary path. Sometimes this is only a relatively minor influence (the taste or colour of prey making them undesirable or undetectable), sometimes it can be very apparent (poison secreting glands, regenerative abilities)

      It's incredible - and sometimes confusing - how these two processes interweave and compliment, even mimic, each other.

      --
      There is no knowledge that is not power.
  36. Helps your poker game too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hanging around. Hanging around. Can't get rid of him. Kid's got aligator blood.

    1. Re:Helps your poker game too by dosun88888 · · Score: 1

      That's a hell of an elk!

  37. Reminds me of a story... by sponglish · · Score: 1

    From Alfred Hitchcock's Book of Monster (IIRC)

    A not insane scientist doing research on alligators or crocs discovers that they have a congenital heart condition (hole in the heart wall I think it was) that made them so sluggish. He fixes the gene, the hole is healed, and shortly afterward the story ends with humanity living underground in fear of winged fire-breathing dragons.

    --
    "I improvise. It's my greatest talent. I prefer situations to plans..." --Wintermute, William Gibson's "Neuromancer"
  38. Gives an entirely new meaning to ... by slashdotlurker · · Score: 1

    Gatorade

    1. Re:Gives an entirely new meaning to ... by kris.montpetit · · Score: 1

      lmao

  39. Humans can respond w/out prior exposure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    The authors must never have heard of the innate immune system. Unlike the adaptive arm, the innate system responds very quickly to non-self and can combat infection or at least control the spread of pathogens until the adaptive system can respond effectively. Defensins and other bacteriacidal proteins are as old as insects and have been purified from haemolymph (the insect functional equivalent of blood) for almost two decades. Humans also boast a large repertoire of Toll-Like Receptors, analogues to Drosophila Toll, which recognize molecular patterns never expressed by the host, but always associated with pathogens. Another way humans respond to viruses, bacteria and fungi is the complement system, which also does not need prior exposure. This seems like grandstanding on the part of the authors, if you can even call them that, since this isn't published peer-reviewed work yet. I'll stick to eating gumbo for my alligator-derived health benefits.

  40. Hi. Maybe you're unaware by BitterAndDrunk · · Score: 4, Funny

    Crocodiles are relatives of alligators, but are not the same animal. I know it's confusing because they're very scary animals.

    --
    You better watch out, there may be dogs about . . .
  41. As someone with a Veinious Leg Ulcer by CharlieG · · Score: 1

    I'm glad to see this. You get them for the opposite reason as a diabetic leg ulcer (instead of poor supply in - you have poor flow out). These things can take YEARS to heal (I'm going on a year)

    I managed to catch an antibiotic resistant strain of something. Taking dyvox right now - Not fun at all, but it seems to have cleared the infection - I'll be done with this course on Friday night. Can't wait (there are a number of side effects, and a HUGE number of eating restrictions)

    --
    -- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
  42. Drinking blood may actually help? by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 1

    So in this rare circumstance, the weird ritual of drinking your enemies' blood to "gain their strength" may actually do something? That is too weird to be made up!

    --
    stuff |
    1. Re:Drinking blood may actually help? by repapetilto · · Score: 1

      well if you hunt someone down and kill them (and they see you coming) youll probably be taking adrenaline in with that (never saw anything saying so but at stomach pH i imagine itd be absorbed)which would make you stronger for a bit.

  43. Actual abstract from symposium (ie... by repapetilto · · Score: 1

    ...what they actually found out) Abstract We are using mass spectrometry based proteomics to investigate immune related proteins of the American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis). Alligators have an innate immune system, meaning that they require no specific exposure to an antigen to illicit an immune system response. Alligators were captured and blood was drawn from internal jugular vein. Adult alligators were injected with lipopolysaccharide (LPS) to activate their immune system. Serum was collected from the whole blood by homogenizing and centrifugation followed by salt removal using 20% trichloroacetic acid. Proteins expressed after exposure to LPS was separated using 2D-gel electrophoresis. The down-regulated proteins were isolated and digested for identification. Analysis was performed using nano-ESI-MS/MS on a quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometer and identified with MASCOT using MSDB and NCBInr database. When uninfected alligator serum was compared to LPS exposed serum the protein expression changed, indicating that the alligators produce significant innate immunological proteins when exposed to an infection.

  44. Evolution is about offspring by PIPBoy3000 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Maybe the kid born with the super-human immune system was ugly as sin and all the girls ignored him when it was time to make babies. The good looking guy was able to father dozens of children and keeled over at a young age due to an infected hang-nail.

    You'd think a site full of supposed nerds would understand the concept instinctively.

  45. Phage therapy for superbugs by Zdzicho00 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Regarding 'superbugs'.
    I know that it's already possible to cure that type of infections with bacteriophages with success rate above 80% (about 95% for Staphylococcus aureus). Since last 27 years Institute of Immunology and Experimental Therapy of Polish Academy of Sciences (located in Wroclaw) have been involved in curing about 1500 people with suppurative bacterial infections, in which a routine antibiotic therapy failed.

    http://www.iitd.pan.wroc.pl/phages/phages.html

    This is not a secret thing, so most likely all important people involved in that kind of science (MRSA infections) are aware of this kind of therapy.
    Why in other countries (except Poland) is that treatment still not known and not available? Lot of people is dying due to 'superbugs'! MRSA infections alone are responsible for more deaths in the U.S. each year than AIDS!
    Why not to let people to try this still EXPERIMENTAL therapy?

    Maybe the health care industry got to big inertia or doesn't care or just prefer to cure people with super-expensive brand new antibiotics instead of something relatively cheap.
    Is they business case more important then people health or life? They just want to make money instead of curing people?

    The final conclusion is that we shouldn't expect anything spectacular regarding 'gator immune system'. Other treatments are already available but simply ignored.
    They will not make it available if not sure that it will earn a mountain of bucks for them.
    SHOW ME THE MONEY!

    /Z
  46. Not south La at All. by puto · · Score: 1

    Your name is notquitecajun. I would say it describes Lake Charles.

    Well Lake Charles is not really South Louisiana, but lower Texas.

    I would say south louisiana are places starting with Lafayette and going to Thibodaux, Houma, LockPort, LaRose.

    I was born in Houma, raised in New Orleans, and went to college in Thibodaux. I don't even rate New Orleans as South Louisiana, it is an entity unto intself.

    I lived in Lake Chuck for about a year, and it definitley is more redneck than Cajun(my grandparents spoke french before english down in Gibson).

    Lafayette has the Atchafalaya, Lake Charles has Moss bluff. Two very different animals.

    And the reason the alligators are a nuisance is that in the real South Louisiana is that years ago when the brought in the lily pads to stop the erosion, they overgrow and choked the water, so they brought in the nutria to eat the lily pads, and the nutria bred like the rats they are, and the gators had an instant self replinishing food source. Plus with the restrictions on killing them, they are all over the place now.

    Alligator is good eating though.

    I am an actual coon ass!

    --
    The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
    1. Re:Not south La at All. by Notquitecajun · · Score: 1

      Woot, you actually have me beat...born and raised in BR here. Yeah, Lake Chuck is rapidly turning into an extension of Houston, but I needed some reason to show these goofballs what Louisiana is like.

    2. Re:Not south La at All. by puto · · Score: 1

      Whoo hee. Baton Rouge is almost Yankee coountry. But spent some time there. The Catery, Georges Under the Bridge, Fluer Di Le Pizza. Tonys Sea food.

      Baton Rouge has decent food. Cute girls, but seems to close down in the summer.

      Best friend lives in Greenwell Springs.

      --
      The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
    3. Re:Not south La at All. by Notquitecajun · · Score: 1

      Yeah, outside of Louisiana I can pass, simply because ANYONE from Louisiana is automatically interesting. Back home, though, you're a yankee if you're born north of I-10.

  47. Not the only species by PCM2 · · Score: 2, Informative

    It could also be that the changes required to end up with an immune system like that are incredibly complex and may involve steps along the way that are not evolutionarily advantageous in most species, so the necessary sequence of evolutionary steps was not completed in most species.

    The alligator does not seem to be entirely unique in this.

    In my Emerging Infectious Diseases class, we learned that the tiny ticks that spread the Lyme disease bacterium are known to bite and feed on the blood of the western fence lizard. An interesting side effect of this behavior is that the blood of the lizard apparently clears the ticks' guts of Lyme bacteria. So this immune adaptation is apparently present in a number of lizard species.

    Think, also, of the Komodo dragon, which walks around with a poisonous soup of microbes in its mouth at all times -- in fact, it actually uses this disease cocktail as an offensive weapon.

    --
    Breakfast served all day!
  48. Alligators aka blood sucking lawyers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So the blood of lawyers is good for something now, eh?

  49. Now that's Gator-Aid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    i'm so so sorry

    really

  50. In other news this day of april 8, 2018 by burtosis · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The last alligator in the wild went extinct this spring. Enviornmentalists blame over use by humans of the highly successful drug family Alligacin. Wide spread infections have become possible, they claim, as they were adapted to alligtor immune system protiens by over use from humans wanting to use them from aliments ranging from a cut finger, to the common cold, to a stubbed toe.

  51. Another reason maybe? by YeeHaW_Jelte · · Score: 1

    ""The fact that people will misuse drugs does not mean we shouldn't make them available."

    Someone should probably tell that to the DEA before we waste any more resources on this whole war on drugs thing."

    Hmm, or they have another reason entirely for cracking down on drugs?

    Just speculating ...

    --

    ---
    "The chances of a demonic possession spreading are remote -- relax."
    1. Re:Another reason maybe? by speaktruth · · Score: 1

      What exactly are you speculating? Perhaps read my subsequent post before answering.

  52. You laugh now... by hellfire · · Score: 1

    Gator blood to boost immunity
    Alcohol to kill micro-organisms
    Hot pepper sauce to "cleanse" the digestive tract

    Sounds like we are onto something here. Don't let big pharma know.

    --

    "All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

  53. It'll be great... by EddyPearson · · Score: 1

    ...for about three years.

    Doctors will start prescribing this rather than regular penicillin (because drug companies love a new, expensive drug), they'll treat the most minor infection with it (it's all about the money people). Then soon, after we've all been pumped full of the stuff, the clever little bacteria will evolve, become resistant, and it'll be ineffective again.

    Still, the drug companies made a quick buck, and people still want an antibiotic that works, so they go find another, and start again.

    I've always said, medical care and for-profit-companies, should be kept as far away from each other as possible. Luckly I live in the UK where I can hurt myself as much as I like, and not expect a bill.

    --
    You feel sleepy. Close your eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.
  54. Swampland in Florida by scott-thomason · · Score: 1

    If you believe this article, then I have some swamp-land in Florida I'd like to sell you...oh, wait...
    ---scott

    Robocode in VB: http://scott-thomason.org/vbrobocode

  55. Dragons Blood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Am I the only one who recalls the myth of dragon's blood being incredibly medicinal? Dragon -> Alligator Hmmmmmm...

  56. Completely self-defeating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Of course there's some super-miraculous cure-all found somewhere in the wild. The point is, as soon as you turn it into mass-produced medicine, the bugs are selected for resistance, and it doesn't work anymore. That is the whole point. Chemical medicine is useful to a degree, but it's now reached a state where people are only racing because they have legs. There's no invincible goal state that can be reached. Back off the drugs and let the human race do some evolving of its own. There are only so many last-ditch saves left in nature and if we haven't formed natural resistances by the time they run out, we're stuck in The Matrix without any Kung Fu.

  57. The grammar nazi that I am... by a4r6 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I believe it should read "Previous studies have shown" rather than "showed" because it's in the past perfect tense.

  58. Gator Man! by MrSteveSD · · Score: 1, Funny

    I'm not sure the new show will be that successfull, but here's a possible theme song...

    Gator-Man, Gator-Man,
    Hides in water wherever he can,

    Grabs a leg, Just like light,
    Lets the corpse rot overnight,

    Hey man, here comes the Gator-Man,

    Gator-Man, Gator-Man, Deadly neighbourhood Gator-Man, Wealth and fame, he's ignored,
    Chunks of flesh are his reward,

    Hey man, here comes the Gator Man

  59. A function of the environment... by trooper9 · · Score: 1

    May be that there is no "cost" to this trait. Think about it for a second in terms of the 'gators environment: Alligators and crocs make their daily living by floating in an organic-rich environment that contains innumerable bacteria, parasitic worms, amoeba, and other nasties. When they do get out of the water, it's to crawl up on a culture medium called "mud".

    In an environment like this, it seems that natural selection would weed out weak immune systems post-haste and reward only the most hardy. Any skin-breaking injury in a swamp can be deadly.

    Being that gators and crocs have lived in these or close to these environs for quite a while now, I would have expected at least some sort of adaption along these lines.

    Now, why don't sharks get cancer?

    --
    blah
    1. Re:A function of the environment... by compro01 · · Score: 1

      Now, why don't sharks get cancer? immune system again, i believe. i remember reading that their immune system is able to recognize when a cell becomes cancerous and proceeds to kill the cell before it gets anywhere.

      i believe treatments to make the human immune system do the same trick have been being researched for awhile, though i haven't heard of any actually in use yet.
      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  60. Enter The Great Alligator Plague by Phat_Tony · · Score: 1

    That's the first thing I thought. I thought "alligators made it for about 80 million years little changed, and now we're going to kill 'em off." We're going to steal their secret survival weapon and spray it all over the place until the pathogens are all immune, and then that'll be it for the alligators.

    --
    Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
  61. The Mad Fools! by Michael_Burton · · Score: 2, Funny

    Those fools!

    It's true Dr. Connors' work has not yet been featured in a Spider-Man movie, but that's no excuse for scientists not being familiar with the literature regarding this kind of research.

    --
    When all you have is an axe, everything looks like a grindstone.
  62. i'm not afraid of research by someone1234 · · Score: 1

    Apparently you don't know much of people with whom you share this planet.

    You and the previous answerer should take a peek at whales which are hunted 'for science' by the japanese whalers.
    Or other wild animals which are hunted for various parts. I'm not as silly to eat tiger testicles as you believe i am. But there ARE other people :)

    --
    Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
  63. maybe that explains my urge to bite people by peter303 · · Score: 1

    .. after my last visit to the doctor and he gave me a shot.

  64. OMG!!!11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Save the alligators!!

  65. News at 11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HIV, or _Human_ Immunodeficiency Virus, is specific to humans only. It cannot infect non-humans, as they do not have receptors on their cells which respond to the virus.

  66. Re:Hey, a muslim! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that's easy you recruit young passionate but naive men to fight for the "good" cause and promise to take care of their family is they should die for the cause; then once you have them in a foreign land surrounded by a cadre of vicious paid thugs, you tell him you'll sell his sisters into sexual slavery and kill the rest of his family if he doesn't.

  67. Re:superbugs - vultures by ancientt · · Score: 1

    Vultures are indeed a good bet as they're able to handle eating some very scary things.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulture:
    Botulinum toxin, the toxin that causes botulism, does not affect them, and they can eat rotten flesh containing anthrax and cholera bacteria.
    --
    B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
  68. Finally... by hyades1 · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...It looks like my ex will be good for something positive.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  69. Full Circle? by Gat0r30y · · Score: 1

    I was once bit by a gator. Sent me to the hospital because it got really infected (big red lines were coming up my arm, as it turns out my lymphatic system got infected with something less than friendly). I got a healthy shot of antibiotics to fix me up (along with a couple days of involuntary bed rest). Funny to see the gator's blood could be the source for the next hardcore antibiotic.

    --
    Prediction: The real iPhone killer is going to be sex robots from Japan. Think about it.