Slashdot Mirror
"Lazarus Project" Clones Extinct Frog
cylonlover writes "Australian scientists have successfully revived and reactivated the genome of an extinct frog. The 'Lazarus Project' team implanted cell nuclei from tissues collected in the 1970s and kept in a conventional deep freezer for 40 years into donor eggs from a distantly-related frog. Some of the eggs spontaneously began to divide and grow to early embryo stage with tests confirming the dividing cells contained genetic material from the extinct frog. The extinct frog in question is the Rheobatrachus silus, one of only two species of gastric-brooding frogs, or Platypus frogs, native to Queensland, Australia. Both species became extinct in the mid-1980s and were unique amongst frog species for the way in which they incubated their offspring."
Is this some kind of reverse Jurassic Park story where the frog accidentally had a few strands of dinosaur DNA thrown in and starts breeding into dinosaurs?
As long as they aren't cloning any Raptors, or giving them hover-boards, I think we're OK.
-1 Comment Contains Portal Reference
It can be from Cold Lazarus the sci-fi drama if you prefer.
okay, okay Commander Shepard. But you must get in the line!
Some of the eggs spontaneously began to divide and grow to early embryo stage – a tiny ball of many living cells.
That's really cool. I hope they get a full specimen soon.
Next step: velociraptors.
Good. You have every right to be offended. Now take your ball and go play somewhere else.
...welcome out new amphibian overlords.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_vj2e1m7Hlgw/TSRzvDOTZTI/AAAAAAAAxUk/JWOcv-P25Fo/s1600/vliz.jpg
Silence is a state of mime.
http://science.slashdot.org/story/13/03/15/1639254/berkeley-scientists-plan-to-jurassic-park-some-extinct-pigeons-back-to-life
Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
Your personal Ugh Fields do not define data or evidence.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
This is the thing I still don't get about cloning extinct species. The mitochondria are also part of the organism, but they don't seem seem to ever get taken into account when there is talk of cloning. If you take the mitochondria from one species and the nuclear DNA from another species, what do you get? You could easily argue that you get a sort of hybrid species, which is not quite the same as either parent species.
In order to really call it a clone it should have survived longer and actually produced a living frog.
As it stands now it is just a bunch of cells damaged to an unknown degree of severity.
When did the 1970s become 40 years ago?
It will be interesting to see how effective this is. DNA is not the sole source of information for an organism's morphology. Nuclear transfer has shown some traits which are not dependent on DNA. It will be very interesting to compare the morphology of the final organism to the original, extinct species.
Engineering and the Ultimate
It's easier to revive an extinct frog than to make a working Pascal development environment for Linux.
No one panic, to keep them under control they will only clone female frogs.
As with jaguars, this will be considered one of the worst DNA bottlenecks of all time depending, of course, on how many specimens he kept and how many can become viable. If only the one then they'll all be clones even if they start breeding on their own. just think, we may produce thousands of these in a controlled environment only to have them wiped out completely when they run into a bacteria, virus or fungus to which they have no resistance but some other variant member of the species might. it would kill them all and we'd have to start from scratch. Such will be the case with the Tasmanian tiger as well, a wonderful achievement at bringing back an extinct species and with all the fragility of fine porcelain to be kept safe, admired and protected from any outside danger.
Yes, I know there are spontaneous mutations but they take time and these specimens likely won't have that time.
I personally thought of the Lazarus Project used to bring Commander Shepard back from death in ME2. Hell, there was a Batman villain who used a "Lazarus pit" to cheat death as well. It's no more awful than using names from Greek or Roman mythology.
capcha: contempt
Oh, yeah, "oooh" "ahhhh", that's how it always starts. But then later there's running and screaming.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
I wonder if they filled the gaps in the gene sequences with DNA from dino-saaaaaurs...
Boo.
You're not offended at roman mythological names for the planets, are you? Science isn't endorsing or promoting these religions, they're merely referencing them. "Project to bring a frog back from extinction" or "Jurribbit park" aren't as memorable. At least, not in a good way.
... but filled them in with dinosaur DNA.
Of course: WhatCouldPossiblyGoWrong
Shouldn't we have saved the Lazarus project for when Commander Shepard needs it to come back and save the universe again?
This is being overly hyped before the actual results most of us would consider significant. From TFA: "Although none of the embryos survived longer than a few days, the work is encouraging for others looking to clone a variety of currently-extinct animals". I realize that there may be significant steps taken with this attempt, but the real success for most people is when of these things is hopping around.
You can only be young once, but you can be immature forever.
That's just childishly unacceptable. What room does a genocidal desert-myth have to do with modern genetics? To constantly have this crap forced down our throats is intellectual oppression.
In another life, you'd be a Pat Robertson raging against Planned Parenthood.
Cultural context. Deal with it, bitch.
Not going to lie, this was my first thought.
-- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
Yeah a new home grown invasive species !! Reaching back in time to create the next pestilence :)
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
You would prefer "zombie frog"? I'm offended by your anti-Christian bigotry.
This has me a bit worried.
comment
To constantly have your religion shoved down our throats is intellectual oppression. You cannot erase 2000+ years of history. To attempt to remove all references of it is to do a disservice to yourself. Accept the fact that the mythology you loath is an important part of our culture and shut the fuck up.
The Tazmanian Tiger needs cloned.
You must be fun to be around at Easter. Seriously, the Lazarus project just sound cool. Because well the name Lazarus sounds cool. I can easily see such a project spawning the Zombie Apocalypse. And what other hope do I have left now that Ron Paul didn't get to be president.
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
I recall the time they found those fossilized mosquitoes
And before long, they were cloning DNA
Now I'm being chased by some irate veloceraptors
Well, believe me... this has been one lousy day
Jurassic Park is frightning in the dark
All the dinosaurs are running wild
Someone shut the fence off in the rain
I admit it's kinda eerie
But this proves my chaos theory
And I don't think I'll be coming back again
Oh no
I cannot approve of this attraction
'Cause getting disemboweled always makes me kinda mad
A huge tyrannosaurus ate our lawer
Well, I suppose that proves... they're really not all bad
Jurassic Park is frightning in the dark
All the dinosaurs are running wild
Someone let T. Rex out of his pen
I'm afraid those things'll harm me
'Cause they sure don't act like Barney
And they think that I'm their dinner, not their friend
Oh no
Jurassic Park is frightning in the dark
All the dinosaurs are running wild
What a crummy weekend this has been
Well, this sure ain't no E-ticket
Think I'll tell them where to stick it
'Cause I'm never coming back this way again
Oh no... oh no
++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
Now there's no need to save the polar bears.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Hey, I'm still protesting the names of the week - I mean, Tyr, Odin, Thor, Frida - stop forcing your Paganism on me - every. single. week.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
For me Lazarus is a reference to Batman and R'as al Ghul, not some silly archaic book.
I too am surprised they named it after Archbishop Lazarus. And I don't like you calling Diablo a "fairy-tale"!
I was thinking the same question, but realized that if you think of the functional application of the mitochondria then it is like modular software. You can replace a function or submodule with another function or submodule/subroutine which implements the same functionality in a different way/algorithm/technique. And, as long as the new routine has no side-effects (affecting items not specifically called via the API / calling module variables), then it's a valid replacement that "cannot be detected otherwise".
.
In other words, if you can swap out a different mitochondrial family for the usual one, as long as there are no other "side effects", you have a good facsimile of the original. It's like being able to swap out a heart or part of a lung or one kidney in a person with transplant surgery: functional equivalence is sometimes sufficient without exact equivalence being necessary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Enough_for_Love
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Alternative_Factor
On the other hand: WhatCouldPossiblyGoHilarious.
Suppose over the next hundred years, humans were to start doing this, and some of the resulting speciments got into wild. Then we had a very serious catastrophe (nuclear war, asteroid strike, etc) resulting in 1) we stopped doing it 2) (nearly) all the cultural records were lost, so there are no documents explaining what FooLab did in 2041.
Fast forward six millennia, to the year 8013. Scientists would have rediscovered evolution, but unlike today's situation, some of the evidence wouldn't quite add up right. They would see, from looking at DNA evidence, that something very interesting happened in a few thousand years ago. Someone would get an idea, and they would be able to formulate tests to falsify or confirm a brand new theory, called Intelligent Design, and they'd confirm it. Actually, they would probably call it something less stupid, but it really would be an actual theory, in every sense of the word.
Then, miraculously, in 8016, someone finds a cache of ancient documents. It looks like some storage device the year 2016 survived, and they're able to pull some internet discussion threads off it. They see people talking about something called "Intelligent Design" and something else about the world being six thousand years old. Since it's an incomplete document cache, they have no idea where the 2013 "Intelligent Design" came from, that it was made up, rather than being derived from evidence or related to science somehow. The 8016ers have no idea where the 2013 idea of a 6000 year old world came from, they just know that people sometimes mentioned it, usually mockingly.
You're in 8016 and you learn this. 6000 years ago, people were talking about some things that you know to be true, in a limited form. (Most of life isn't only 6000 years old, but some of it is. Presumably the 2016 discussions, for which you have incomplete records, were about similarly limited samples.) What do you think?
You think "oh shit, people have gone through this before, and something horrible keeps happening every 6000 years," and you start building bomb shelters. You also start looking at the DNA evidence for an echo, for a 12000 year old genetic node, although you don't find it. But there are plenty of ways to come up with good conspiracy theories for why it's not there. Maybe the 2013 people realized that the 4000-BC-genetically-engineered creatures were responsible for the 4000 BC nuclear war, and hunted them (nearly) to extinction. You need to start exterminating the 21st century abominations now .. or wait, is that exactly what went wrong in prior cycles, and what causes the bigger catostrophe? OMG by head hurts. What are we going to do? WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO!!?!?!!
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
I realize that Australia has had some unique species but given the fact that the Cane Toad is threatening to wipe out native species and that people are having mass cane toad whacking parties. Why in the hell would they want to bring back another toad, er frog? I mean shouldn't they be spending their energies in coming up with a crocodile that eats cane toads or cats that have 5 inch saber like claws that could kill them? or maybe just an ad campaign "Cane Toad, it's what's for dinner mate!"
This just seems so counter intuitive on so many levels.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
As a fellow atheist, I could not care less what name was picked for this project. Yes, the story of Lazarus is clearly a myth. So what? We all know what supposedly happened to him and I think it's quite apt.
In C++, your friends can see your privates.
Please clone a dodo, apparently they tasted very good!
So the default response amongst the general public is likely to be "bring back dinosaurs!".
I object. We don't know what dinosaurs taste like.
On the other hand, there is historical evidence that Dodos were driven extinct because they were DELICIOUS.
So... ship some samples from the London Museum where there is a preserved Dodo or two, to the Ozzie scientists and get some Dodos going so we can put Dodo burger back on the menu.
Oh, grow up. I'm non-religious but I do understand cultural references. I suppose you also don't like "genetics" because it refers to "genesis" in the etymology of the word? I mean, what next? Are you going to complain about Elvis taxa too?
And as a sane person, I take offense to your reactionary "OMG SOMEONE USED A WORD THAT IS VAGUELY RELATED TO RELIGION" horseshit.
You can be an atheist, and that's fine. What's not fine is being an atheist and preaching it as a religion. Just like I don't want Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists in my face, I don't want you denouncing all of them in my face either.
Just keep it to yourself and shut up already.
Quit whining you over-sensitive bastard.
[I]f I was at a dinner party with any of them and the subject of the name came up I would absolutely point out how ridiculous and annoying and even passively-condoning-of-evil it was.
I bet you're awesome at dinner parties.
The interesting thing here is that if you didn't already know about the story of Lazarus from the Bible, you wouldn't be offended.
So, I take it the names Mars, Venus, and Jupiter somehow offend you, too?
Ethical questions abound here - like drones and all new technology there is a wild west period before the dumb masses catch up with what the super boffins are up to. For some reason, I don't mind them trying to revive frogs but once you get into mammalian projects like mammoths and neanderthals I think the possibility of creating tortured "elephant nan" type creatures should eliminate those projects from consideration. There would be about 10 years of monstrous failures before they could perfect that technique with any genome, and they need to face the "should we (answer: no)" questions instead of the "can we" thrill seeking imo. Like imagine the Neanderthal being successfully cloned, carried to term by a surrogate and delivered. Even if it doesn't come out of the womb like a chernobyl baby, which is like a 0.00072% chance, imagine being a minority of #one#. That would be psychologically hellish for a highly sentient being imo.
I don't know :(
There is a slight difference, in that no one (of any consequence) actually believes the Roman gods actually exist.
They do exist! And I'm offended that you say otherwise. Why do you think we named the planets after them?
I used to be fairly passive and head nodding, my only rule was I was not going to lie if I was asked a direct question about what I think/feel/believe/do. Apparently, this level of hyperpolite tolerance does not sufficiently coddle their insecurities. The awkward moments will ALWAYS be there unless you are willing to not just passively conceal your beliefs, but lie about them as well. So why bother concealing them at all? I'm not saying abandon all tact. I make sure not to be rude or accusatory or especially emotional in any way, I just calmly state my view on the matter, often with a shrug. That this is still considered to be terribly offensive by many Christians (seriously, how the hell do they get worked up about someone as calm and reasonable and tolerant as Dawkins?) is all the more reason not to self-censor. To put it in a more Orwellian manner: saying aloud the words "Two plus two equals four" is usually prosaic and pointless... but not if there are a lot of people running around saying it equals three, and we need to be up in arms against those heretics who say it's five.
Just as a counterpoint to your concerns, I think it's possible that having biblical symbolism re-purposed for secular use as mythological allegory will weaken the grip of bible-thumping fundie-nutjobs on the public conscious. By employing biblical symbolism the same way that enlightenment-era neoclassicism used Greek mythology --- which didn't create a new generation of Zeus-worshippers --- the Christian-centric impact of the terms is undermined by a different message. This example subconsciously subverts the original intent of the Lazarus story from "What can bring stuff back from the dead? Jesus!" to "What can bring stuff back from the dead? Science!".
I say this as a Christian (though not of the bible-thumping-fundie variety), who doesn't particularly want to see Christian symbolism reduced to generic secular allegory. If I don't want this to happen, then perhaps you (as a militant atheist) should.
or Leisure Suit Lazarus
So, I take it the names Mars, Venus, and Jupiter somehow offend you, too?
Naah, they're fine with me. After all, why not name a really burning hot planet after a burning hot goddess?
Then again, if Jupiter's got that one red eye, maybe it should have been named for Odin...
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
And what if Christians started complaining about the way their stories are being co-opted for things like this? Would it suddenly be a wonderful idea?
Do you never say "Oh my God!" or "Jesus Christ!"?
All I could think about was season 3 episode 6 of Doctor Who. Egads.No thanks.
"You killed my yogurt!" --Fred Fredburger
I dunno... I kind of like the Jurribbit Park idea...
It is funny how anything referencing religion brings out the pro-religion and anti-religion zealots with their "you must believe exactly as i believe or you're wrong" mentality. Both extreme stances are anti-intellectual, but that doesnt change the fact that the "Jurribbit" idea is still funny..
Personally I find this name deliciously blasphemous.
As an atheist, I am offended that the name given to such a scientific triumph is that of a fairy-tale produced by the world's most dangerous delision.
I am offended at your dangerous spelling. :(
How exactly am I militant? This kind of characterization really drives home my point. Non-militant atheists means what... never saying "you are wrong" ? My words and attitudes are infinitely more reasonable than the fire and brimstone you can hear over the public airwaves, during the daytime when impressionable children could be watching/listening. And unlike many politically powerful Christians, I never advocate for institutionalized supression of the opposition.
For that matter I also object to being characterized as an atheist (I did use the phrase 'apathetic atheists', mostly because I knew I was already veering into offtopic territory and didn't need another digression.) I am a Freethinker, which makes atheism a rather unavoidable consequence, but my atheism influences my actions to the same degree your lack of belief in Santa Claus influences yours.
I can see how you would view secularization as weakening Christianity, but I think the more proper way to characterize it is a watering down, making it more palitable (like the Catholic Church did with Christmas and Easter.) By injecting lots of frivolities you deaden the power of the more blatant fundamentalists, yes, but you also muddy the waters so much that people can't see where actual Christianity begins or ends, it turns into this nebulous thing with contradictory tendrils touching different parts of our lives, and that makes it harder to fight.
No, I'm all for that. I think it's fantastic when Christians bitch about the Christ being taken out of Christmas (although it's a tad silly to blame us, since it was Christians who decided to give it a snazzier hero and to absorb all of that pagan winter solstice stuff.) I hope they manage to reestablish firm lines between religious and secular, I really do.
Out of curiosity, do you oppose all religious naming? I am thinking about the Roman (Plants, space program), medicine (lots of Greek mythos here), satellite defense (Star Wars is part of the Jedi credo, etc.), various “ark” programs (Jewish or Christen), etc?
Oddly enough, powerful cultural ideas tend to inspire scientist.
My apologies if the term "militant atheist" came off as offensive. I assumed the "militant" part from your statement that you'd make a big deal at a dinner party over a scientist merely using a name derived from the Christian tradition (without the intent of proselytizing) --- this seemed to me a bit beyond "never saying 'you are wrong'"; well into "always saying 'you are wrong'" at every small opportunity. As for "atheist," I'm friends with enough people who identify positively with the appellation that I wasn't even thinking that it might be objectionable --- and now I know better. Also, I personally object to the stance that one can't be both a (little-f) free-thinker and a theist :)
I understand your point that promoting familiarity with Christian terminology/mythology might result in "making it more palatable." However, I think there are important differences between your example --- where the Catholic church "sneaks in" Christian perspectives on secular (or at least pre-Christian pagan) celebrations --- and when a scientist (presumably not intending to covertly push a "Christian agenda") draws metaphors from the Christian tradition. If you want to "fight" Christianity (... just after objecting to being called "militant"), perhaps blending it into the same nebulous cultural background to which Zeus and Thor now belong might be a more successful strategy --- you at least don't risk validating the complaints of fundies with a persecution complex, and turning public sentiment against yourself. If the subtle cultural assimilation approach worked so well for the Catholic church, why shouldn't the same work for promoting non-theistic social philosophies?
But go ahead and do whatever you want. It's not as though I want Christianity to lapse into irrelevancy; and I actually would prefer that Christianity be kept clear and distinct from a generic pervasive cultural complex (since, as a Christian, I think there would be something left when you strip away all the tendrils of human religiosity and power politics).
I like the American Bison. It's the native bovine critter, has excellent meat, plenty of leather and it belongs here. Buffalo Bill Cody and his gang created a major bottle-neck in their genetic code, but there's still plenty of old hides and the like around.
I would like to see something like this used to re-diversify the Bison genome by cloning long dead individuals to make a healthy modern population. All you would have to do is inseminate the existing herds with the old code to expand the base. If it were up to me I would do away with the beef industry in the US and replace it with a Bison industry keeping only some dairy cows when it comes to European bovines. It would increase the health level in the nation quite a bit, even if they were eating McDonald's bison burgers instead of McDonald's beef burgers.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
I said if the topic of the name came up, I would likely chime in with my thoughts. Of course in the grand scheme of things it isn't important enough to go out of the way to bring it up. It came up here and was scoffed at by people who (perhaps subconsciously) believe only politically powerful people have the right to be offended, or those who simply believe that there is no point in quibbling over issues that aren't of earthshaking importance. They do matter. Annoying feminists making a big deal about using gender-neutral language matters, not because it's some insideous thing poisoning our subconscious with sexism (though some would argue that), but precisely because it is so simple, easy and quick. It makes people aware of the fact there is, in fact, another group of people who view things quite a bit differently. It's called "consciousness raising", and it's a battle very different from the big issues like evolution and gay rights and separation of church and state. Low key, but important for the sake of simply being visible (and we are, sadly, still quite invisible. Largely due to our own apathy and defeatism, I'm afraid.) Anyway, since it came up here, it was worth a response from me. That's all. Possibly the length of my responses make it seem like I'm making a bigger deal out of it than I am; I just like to be thorough.
Yes, most vocal atheists seem to be embracing the label as an effective self-descriptor even as most of them decry the concept as stupid, a-buddhist, a-fairy-ist, etc. It's a damn shame, continuing to identify oneself with one is not. There are a great many stupid and/or evil atheists in the world, it just so happens that the "New Atheist" crowd tends to be of the good, freethinking sort. The problem with treating them as synonyms is best exemplified by this damn "What about Stalin" thing that keeps popping up. (Actually, "What about Hitler" pops up more often, which is a pathetic attempt to frame us for an obviously Christian-borne and Christian-executed genocide.) I don't know why Hitchens and Dawkins and the rest mince words. The answer is simple: Stalin was not a freethinker. He was anti-science (see: Lysenkoism) and anti-dissent. Those are probably the two most important building blocks of freethought, which is what good atheists like Dawkins use and advocate. Not believing in something simply doesn't matter; it's what we believe *instead of* the thing you believe in.
He's just a troll. Probably a Christian too. Ignore him.
Whenever liberals are talking about tolerance, they are never talking about themselves.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
When a species goes extinct, another one steps up to fill the niche in the ecosystem. Over time it will adapt further to better fill that niche. If an extinct species is reintroduced, it will be in direct competition with a newer species that fills the void that it left. This competition will drive one of the species to extinction, or re-extinction. For example invasive species have displaced 90% of the native plants and animals in Hawaii. Australia has large problems with invasive species as well.
Either way it may be better to let sleeping dogs lie. Reintroducing a species will mean one species gets wiped out. Its a zero sum game, and not a humane one at that.
I'd like to be clear that I didn't mean "militant" as a derogatory term --- I absolutely agree with the importance of consciousness raising; I've marched in gay rights rallies, and been arrested in an anti-corporate protest sit-in myself, so I'm no stranger to what I would define as "militant" actions on my own part to take a stand on issues I consider important. I have nothing against your pouring thought and attention into long responses; it's an admirable quality.
As to embracing or not the "atheist" label, it's a very similar struggle to the (also unresolved) nomenclature debates between groups in the LGBTQIA(etc.) community --- e.g., is "queer" a demeaning smear, or a badge of proud and independent identity? I appreciate that particular "picky" stances on self-identifying nomenclature are critical for identifying what components of an otherwise broad and amorphous movement deserve emphasis. I personally think that the components you identify as "important building blocks of freethought" --- a scientific and critical-dissent-welcoming intellectual/social grounding --- do not inevitably require atheism (though they certainly do conflict with many real existing religious institutions).
my atheism influences my actions to the same degree your lack of belief in Santa Claus influences yours
On a side note, I've seen this particular line of reasoning in various forms before, and, while a witty sound-bite, I've never thought it holds up well to closer scrutiny (and hence seems unworthy coming from people who theoretically prize rational thought). It would indeed seem silly to make a point of calling ordinary non-Santa-believing adults "asantaists." However, if there was an adult who devoted a considerable amount of time and energy to telling children that Santa isn't real, and berating parents for raising their children with Santa stories, and attending lectures and reading books by prominent Santa-debunkers --- calling that person an asantaist might not be so odd. I'd say your lack of belief in God influences your actions much more than my lack of belief in Santa, because I put zero time/effort into educating myself or others around me about the perils of Santa --- you not only passively disbelieve in God (as I do in Santa), but actively work to promote and defend said disbelief. Based on your post here and below, I respect that you would prefer to emphasize more important *positive* defining aspects of your position; but this doesn't make your atheism conceptually equivalent to my asantaism.
The functional equivalence I was getting at was not the DNA (or any sort of "API" sort of thing) but the fact that mitochondria play a role as the energy provider in cells by phosphorylation of AMP -> ADP -> ATP. ATP is used as the main energy source in cells, and it's the mitochondria within cells that provides the "refueling"/"recharging" via the Krebs cycle also known as the citric acid cycle. :>) Functional equivalence means "makes ATP" here!
.
Yes, mitochondria also play other roles, but you could (probably) take a different DNA-source mitochondrion and be an evil "cellular surgeon" and replace the original mitochondria with Folger's Crystals mitochondria, and the cell will never know the difference. So the functional equivalence I meant is that in terms of generating ATP by phosphorylation and providing the recharging station for the host cell body.
So you don't like it because you think it's pro-Christian, but if they don't then you're for it.
I suppose you imagine yourself quite the independent thinker, too.
It's not merely useful to have certain shared cultural references: it's essential, to form anything that could pass for "a society".
Compare "Goldilocks Zone". "Midas Touch". "Odyssey". "Trojan". "Chimera". "Hydra-headed". Phrases like these are enormously powerful. They're like a jargon that's available to anyone (with the right cultural background, anyway).
Herding bison? Bison are not endangered in at least past of the American West. Bison are not afraid of people or mountain cyclists, and are quite willing to trample and gore them if annoyed, and are annoyed fairly easily. They can run 40 mph for over a mile, can jump 5 vertical feet, and can walk right through and over most ordinary fences.
I very much doubt the older DNA has more placid traits.
Except we really doesn't have to be active about it at all. The disagreement is dropped on our doorstep (often literally) all the damn time. I don't think I've ever brought the subject up myself, either in real life or on the net. I didn't bring up the subject now; I merely responded to the joking and scoffing at the idea that someone might take offense (however fleeting and trivial, like a feminist offended by "fireman") at yet another allusion-without-condemnation to a dangerous fable that is still the single most important political force in this country.
If you did read my other posts, I hope you saw the one about freethought vs. atheism. Freethought influences me a great deal. It is an identity I have trouble imagining myself without, whereas atheism is a mere consequence, a conclusion able to be effortlessly changed at a moment's notice (not that it seems at all likely any new evidence or new reasoning is forthcoming.) Freethought--the valuing of critical thought and rejection of popularity-based arguments--guides the vast majority of my nontrivial thoughts and behavior. It affected my choice of career (a field the average person hasn't even heard of), my choice of a partner, my attitude towards alternative and conventional medicine (I frequently condemn both, but the worst offenses obviously lie with the former), my ethics and morals, etc. Atheism is an important consequence of freethought only to the extent that social and political theism is prevalent.
You put in zero time educating anyone around you about the perils of atheism or other non-Christianity? You are ok with your children being exposed to antiChristian beliefs; or if you are OK with it, do you make no attempt at to tell them that those beliefs are wrong? If an atheist starts gushing over about a book of Hitchens' or Dawkins', are you obliged to keep absolute silence lest you become a militant afreethinker (or a-atheist)? What about being pro-vaccine... is that a consciousness-defining trait if someone does not ignore idle chatter about vaccines causing autism to go unchallenged? Challenging stupid and dangerous ideas is simply an indicator that someone things those ideas are, wait for it, stupid and/or dangerous.
I don't find God-debunking books to be terribly interesting. I got around to reading The God Delusion like six years later only because I wanted to see precisely what could cause such offense. It was underwhelming and fairly tedious. I doubt I'll ever bother reading it through again. Nevertheless, I am a fan of Dawkins precisely because he does not shy away from condemning bad ideas. The belief (nonbelief) itself is completely immaterial to me; the politics of it, however, are not. Nonbelief matters because mainstream society, most promenently Fox News, keeps screaming its goddamned head off that it matters. Trying to counter Christian politics by simply saying "maybe you should keep that private; keep it to yourself" is silly and patronizing and unrealistic. I definitely do not and should not ever expect anyone to believe one thing and act a completely different way in public and in the voting booth. No, the proper response is "you are wrong, this is why, and this is why and how your wrongness is negatively affecting my life." No different from explaining statistics and herd immunity to an anti-vaxer, really.
Never heard of Borland Delphi being called a "frog" before..
Instead of modding me all the way to negative one, could someone who believes this is flamebait explain to me why? I didn't bring up the idea of being offended by this name; I simply responded to the naked mockery of the idea. I explained how such offense is rather reasonable, especially in light of the constant stream of offended Christians still doing the political circuit, still shouting at the top of their lungs about how worried and offended they are. I don't advocate that level of games or rhetoric, but it is a simple conscious-raising step to say "you do know Lazarus is a fairy tale thought by hundreds of millions of Americans to be a literal, historical truth, right?"
Expecting us to ignore it is like choosing the username "vaccines==autism" and complaining it's just a joke when someone condemns it. And I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but that doesn't mean it's flamebait.
The hell are you talking about?
No no, they don't inevitably require it. They inevitably imply it. Important distinction. I won't embark on any lengthy explanation as to why, but I will say that there is a an infinite set of spectulative ideas not inspired by relality, most of which are contradictory, so right away you know the odds of any one of these ideas being correct is extremely low. You can argue that theistic belief (either one specific religion or a nebulous definition that tries to tie together a bunch of disparate religions) has special qualities that make it stand well above these other speculative ideas, but I have never seen such an argument that wasn't ridiculously contrived. (Note I said theistic belief, not deistic belief. Theists trying to ally themselves with deists is even more absurd than Christians trying to ally themselves with Buddhists. I'm not an a-deist, but the concept is so empty as to be irrelevant.)
So yes, it's entirely possible for a freethinker to make an unreasonable exception when it comes to religion, making them a theistic (or at least theism-tolerant) freethinker. It's also possible for someone to literally believe the entire word is the completely literal word of God except for a few key 'obviously allegorical' phrases. Both are inconsistencies, the severity of which depends on how socially and politically contentious the phrases / religions in question are.
I don't really object to "militant"; I just find it an important indicator of how the lines have remained skewed. I do view "atheist" as fairly derogatory (when used as the sole descriptor of one's worldview/arguments) for a variety of reasons, but I recognize that this is still a minority view.
Talk about the missing the point. Good for you, you don't like Christians and think they're ignorant and mean--fine, I don't care at all about that. I don't think they like you very much either. The point is--who gives a crap about such semantics? Are you going to get worked up and in a pedantic lather over ever slight you can possibly imagine? Over every allusion that doesn't pass your muster? Are you to be the culture police, who judges over all acceptable and unacceptable references?
You seem to really enjoy talking about others' insecurities, and yet it seems pretty apparent to everyone reading your comments just where the real wellspring of insecurity lies.
I personally think Jurribit Park was an excellent suggestion!
Defining Statistics and Social Research
Do I really have to recap the conversation for you?
You went off about how you don't want references to Christianity used for non-religious purposes. I asked if you'd feel the same if Christians were offended by the same use, and you said you'd be fine with that.
So your opinion of the use of these terms depends entirely on how Christians feel about it.
You can argue that theistic belief (either one specific religion or a nebulous definition that tries to tie together a bunch of disparate religions) has special qualities that make it stand well above these other speculative ideas, but I have never seen such an argument that wasn't ridiculously contrived.
I won't argue that, because I'm in agreement: despite numerous attempts by great minds over thousands of years, I have yet to see a "rational argument" for Christianity that isn't "ridiculously contrived" (though, in the better cases, the precise locus of ridiculosity is more cleverly and subtly concealed). Of the many Christians who try to "bridge the gap" between their religious beliefs and a modern rational/scientific synthesis by justifying the former in terms of the latter, I am not one. I have yet to find any writer/philospher who closely represesents the particular veiwpoint of my own theological position; in a less-than-satisfactory sense, I'm vaguely between Stephen J. Gould's "non-overlapping magisteria" and Martin Luther's "two kingdoms."
As such, I have no basis on which to prove that my beliefs are correct, or even reasonable or likely. The most I can do is engage in dialogue to clarify what I think (without proving it right), and map out real points of commonality and fundamental disagreement (beyond a superficial "religionist-vs-atheist soundbite spat").
Don't these people watch Dr. Who!?! We need to make sure we have David Tennant around for when this thing hits the fan!