Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Create Healthy Mice With Same-Sex Parents (bbc.com)
Researchers at the Chinese Academy of Sciences were able to make baby mice with two moms and no dad. "The aim of the Chinese researchers was to work out which rules of reproduction they needed to break to make baby mice from same-sex parents," reports the BBC. "That in turn helps understand why the rules are so important." From the report: It was easier with double mums. The researchers took an egg from one mouse and a special type of cell -- a haploid embryonic stem cell -- from another. Both contained only half the required genetic instructions or DNA, but just bringing them together wasn't enough. The researchers had to use a technology called gene editing to delete three sets of genetic instructions to make them compatible (more on that later). The double-dad approach was slightly more complicated. It took a sperm, a male haploid embryonic stem cell, an egg that had all of its own genetic information removed and the deletion of seven genes to make it all work.
The reason we need to have sex is because our DNA -- our genetic code -- behaves differently depending on whether it comes from mum or dad, the study in Cell Stem Cell suggests. And without a female copy and a male copy our whole development gets thrown out of whack. It's called genomic imprinting with parts of the DNA in sperm and parts of the DNA in eggs getting different "stamps" that alter how they work. The bits of DNA carrying these stamps were the ones the researchers had to delete in order to make the baby mice viable.
The reason we need to have sex is because our DNA -- our genetic code -- behaves differently depending on whether it comes from mum or dad, the study in Cell Stem Cell suggests. And without a female copy and a male copy our whole development gets thrown out of whack. It's called genomic imprinting with parts of the DNA in sperm and parts of the DNA in eggs getting different "stamps" that alter how they work. The bits of DNA carrying these stamps were the ones the researchers had to delete in order to make the baby mice viable.
Ladies, before you wipe us out entirely please take a moment to remember who collects your trash every week, does the back-breaking work needed to build your homes and your cars.
Do you want to do all that? I doubt it.
Wait a second while I grab my popcorn.
#DeleteChrome
They can only create female offspring in this manner as women do not have a Y chromosome. I would assume the converse (boys only) would hold true for children of two males.
Swear I read about something like this on Slashdot a year or two ago. Although I don't recall gene editing being involved.
TFA says the mice created from the DNA of two females lived long enough to reproduce, but the ones created from two males died shortly after birth (presumably due to genomic imprinting errors). It's in doubt that even the ones with two mothers were fully healthy/normal.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
Now we know that it can be completely natural for two moms to have a baby!* We have the traditionalists on the ropes now!
* With a tiny bit of engineering
this bullshit is getting out of hand
time to vote anything but sjw liberal across the earth and then purge these crazies
So they needed two moms, bunch of scientists, and an expensive lab.. Or the old fashioned way with a mom and a dad would also have worked. And much cheaper.
Fuck off Russian bastard!
OK. You know who you are. And so does President Trump--the pinkos, the beta males, the bull dykes, the sniffling femme boiz, the snowflakes, the amigos, and chocolate drops. He sees you. He tracks you. And he's coming for you. It is better that you flee the country and live your life in a socialist paradise like Venezuela.
Make no mistake. President Trump is here, he chews up his enemies, and passes chunks of them in his stool. If you are his enemy, you may well be the next chunk in the porcelain bowl.
"The researchers had to use a technology called gene editing"
ooh gene editing. That's new. what year is it? 2001?
Yeah, the DNC is pretty gay. Even the males are soy boys at best
When you get to the point where you have to edit the DNA that much, there really isn't any point in doing it at all. Though this proves that you must have male and female DNA to make a baby. I don't think you would want to try this with humans, chances are the human would grow up with many problems.
I have no fear. My wife still needs me, if only to catch spiders and to splatter her back with sunscreen.
You want to promote same sex marriages.
You are free as in freedom.
You want to prove that having same sex parents isn't any worse than having parents with different sex.
You are free as in beer.
The problem lies withing the concept of "good" and "bad".
Did you check the psychology status of those mice against the reference samples?
For how long?
What are you reference samples?
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
Luke, I'm your father. Meesa too.
China can start advertising to the lesbian couples everywhere that now THEY CAN MAKE BABIES OF THEIR OWN without those despicable men
The babies can arrive via Alibaba Express, any time now ...
This has been possible for many years in humans. As they saying goes, "if your Dad doesn't have a beard, you've got two Mums."
When she suggested reducing population of men to 10%, she meant non-brutal methods.
In her early career, Gearhart took part in a series of seminars at San Francisco State University, where feminist scholars were critically discussed issues of rape, slavery, and the possibility of nuclear annihilation. Gearhart outlines and justifies a three-step proposal for female-led social change:
I) Every culture must begin to affirm a female future.
II) Species responsibility must be returned to women in every culture.
III) The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.
Gearhart does not base this radical proposal on the idea that men are innately violent or oppressive, but rather on the "real danger is in the phenomenon of male-bonding, that commitment of groups of men to each other whether in an army, a gang, a service club, a lodge, a monastic order, a corporation, or a competitive sport." Gearhart identifies the self-perpetuating, male-exclusive reinforcement of power within these groups as corrosive to female-led social change. Thus, if "men were reduced in number, the threat would not be so great and the placement of species responsibility with the female would be assured." Gearhart, a dedicated pacifist, recognized that this kind of change could not be achieved through mass violence. On the critical question of how women could achieve this, Gearhart argues that it is by women's own capacity for reproduction that the ratio of men to women can be changed though the technologies of cloning or ovular merging, both of which would only produce female births. She argues that as women take advantage of these reproductive technologies, the sex ratio would change over generations.[13]
Sally Miller Gearhart, one of the founders of gender studies`
I can finally go back to playing videogames without fearing the onslaught of women trying to use me as a piece of man-meat, day in and day out.
Of course that would have been around 1950, some 70 years ago. Reading her later writing and how she describes her early ideas, I have a feeling she probably wouldn't be all that pleased.
It seems like you must be aware of this because you linked to her Wikipedia page that explains it. So I'm wondering what the purpose of presenting this information in such a misleading way is.
It's been modded as "informative" which suggests that at least some people accepted it without checking. That's a great demonstration of how links are used to add credibility to a post, even though the link largely contradicts it. The existence of the link makes people think that the claim is properly sourced, so they don't bother to check.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Seriously, there are many things that women certainly could do, but seem to prefer someone else (usually a male) do it for them.
Proof that men are retarded.
When the Democrats keep inventing new genders, it will now be possible to test them on mice first.
What is important is building oneâ(TM)s own narrative, nay, oneâ(TM)s own truth!
Bugger reality, it was never important.
What do you call significant overlap?
There is data and research on this but it's complicated and depends on the population you are talking about.
I'd be very surprised if you took a group of same-age individuals- say one hundred 25yo men and 100 25yo women- if more than 10 women were stronger than the weakest 10 men- if we're looking at pure strength.
You would be surprised then. It's more complicated than your intuition is telling you though I understand why you would think that. It depends on exactly what you are measuring and which population. There are important differences between realized population strength versus realized genetic potential strength. It also depends on whether the men and women have been physically training. Men are on average considerably stronger in the upper body but the difference are notably smaller in the lower body. There are some women that are stronger than most men at any given activity. There are no women that are stronger than all men obviously but the overlap is sometimes surprising. For example there are women who can squat over 200kg which I assure you is FAR more than most men of any size can do. The point is that women in general can reach peak strength that is closer to men than many realize.
I coach wrestling and have for over three decades and I coach both men and women. Wrestling obviously has a big strength component to it. Women definitely have a strength disadvantage but it's a smaller gap than most people imagine it to be for equivalent amounts of training. A typical untrained man will often have a bigger advantage over an untrained woman than a trained man will have over a trained woman. This of course varies by size and obviously men on average are larger. But women of similar size can often compete successfully. I've coached high school girls who were good enough to qualify for the state tournament competing against boys in wrestling which puts them in the top 10% and if they were really as weak as you imagine them to be they couldn't possible compete to that high a level. The best Olympic level women's wrestlers can't compete with the guys but they can beat a shocking percentage of the general population of equivalent age men - probably more than 50% in my direct experience. The gap between men's and women's world records in most sports has been shrinking steadily for decades. While nobody should expect women to overtake men, the peak performance potential seems to be not a vast chasm provided equivalent training. I think a lot of the perception of differences comes from the fact that women for a variety of reasons tend to participate less in sports and strength based activities so fewer of them realize their potential.
There fixed it. There were no male-male parent offspring and no transes were done on any mice which makes the feat more impressive BTW.
Can someone who's read the detail confirm my understanding that whatever you do with two female mice, you can only get daughters? Have I got it wrong about Y-DNA?
We never had a march where all the women could finish. Not one. The women didn't have to carry a pack or a weapon.
Anecdotal, sure, but true none the less.
"We often hear lamentations that the coal stored up in the earth is wasted by the present generation without any thought of the future, and we are terrified by the awful destruction of life and property which has followed the volcanic eruptions of our days. We may find a kind of consolation in the consideration that here, as in every other case, there is good mixed with the evil. By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind."
-- Svante Arrhenius
What about 2 dads? We'd much rather the weak dumb female species be replaced first.
Of course that would have been around 1950, some 70 years ago.
No, it was after 1970, nothing shows she has ever changed her opinion, but good try.
It seems like you must be aware of this because you linked to her Wikipedia page that explains it.
Lies. Although mentioned wiki page does try to elaborate how peaceful and non-hateful of her that idea is, as it would have been achieved by "reproduction technologies", she was "a pacifist" after all.
The two other pieces in her speech are also notable, with all the "The Force is Female", "The Future is Female" and "wait, why are rebels ruled exclusively by women in Star Wars" going on, some, perhaps would understand why it could be, from the same speech:
I) Every culture must begin to affirm a female future.
II) Species responsibility must be returned to women in every culture.
I found no mention of anything that you claim in your post, which is kind of funny given that you're bemoaning people for not reading something. I checked the version history in case someone had recently edited the Wikipedia page, but it was last edited on September 29, so it would not have changed between when Kartu wrote his/her post.
The quote that the original poster provided is at the very end of the section on her writing. Earlier in that section it mentions some of her more recent fictional work: "She wrote two books as part of the Earthkeep trilogy, The Kanshou, published in 2002, and The Magister, published in 2003. Both stories explore a dystopian world where women outnumber men, and humans are the only beings on the planet." It would seem that her later writing explores some of those same themes. Her bibliography on Wikipedia does not list other works after those, but it likely does not include everything she's written.
Perhaps she really has distanced herself from those ideas, but the Wikipedia page makes no mention of it, so I don't understand how you can fault someone for not reading information which isn't there. Also, the quoted has a reference indicating it was taken from "The Future—If There Is One—Is Female" which was published in 1982, which while quite some time ago, is not 1950 as you describe. Even if you want to argue that these were made prior to publication, the Wikipedia article indicates that she did not move to San Francisco until 1970 and only started teaching there in 1973. All of that is plainly stated in the Wikipedia article, but none of what you claim. I cannot find a digital copy of "The Future—If There Is One—Is Female" online with a quick Google search so I cannot verify myself that the purported claims in there, but several other sources of information on the internet seem to corroborate the idea.
And you've been modded "informative" which suggests that at least some people accepted it without checking. That's a great demonstration of bullshit is used to discredit a post, when the original information is exactly what it was purported to be. The existence of completely unfounded criticism makes people think the original claim is bunk, so they don't bother to check.
Both stories explore a dystopian world where women outnumber men
Sounds like she thought it was a terrible idea.
You are right thought, it was only about 45-50 years ago she made those statements. Long before she wrote the above.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Soon the feminists will accomplish their goal of eliminating men from the human species entirely.
Sounds like she thought it was a terrible idea.
Doesn't sound like that to me. It sounds like whoever wrote the description/summary thought it was a dystopia. This description appears to be from the description from Barnes and Nobles (that's the source from wiki), which at best one could assume it's what the publisher wrote on the back cover or of the book or something.
There's still no indication it's written by the author herself.
Furthermore, the way the gender ratio was achieved in her fantasy was due to drastic environmental changes, not a deliberate attempt by mankind (or I should say womankind). Furthermore still, the heroine of the story is one of the women (a lesbian at that) in a position of power in society who is trying to solve the problems society, instead of rebelling against society and bringing back the good (bad?) old days of toxic masculinity and homosexuals being prosecuted.
So if you actually read the relevant links (the thing you complain about other people not doing), the context of "dystopia" appears to not be criticizing Gearhart's idea about having women outnumber men, but just that a society was in an injured state after a natural disaster occurred.
In that light, the novels look more like a power fantasy fiction for lesbian feminists, like how Ayn Rand novels are for libertarians.
I make my wife take out the trash and do the weeding. I pay Mexican dudes to build my house and wash my cars.
It appears that the Wikipedia authors added the label "dystopian," I don't see any evidence that she called it that. This is a matter of perspective and you can't use other people's views to tell us about her views. That's just silly.
I note that you do not, likely because you cannot, show us any evidence that she moved away from these ideas and instead try to use the implication that they're old, therefore they must have been abandoned, while providing nothing in the way of evidence for this after you were called out for a faking what the Wikipedia article said.
It's sad when your best "defense" is roughly equivalent to, "I was only 20 years off!" Feel free to give us actual quotes proving that she moved away from this--from her, not from Wikipedia authors--if you can. Don't forget the dates, either--we'll check. If you do not, the only reasonable inference is that you cannot, and you've already been busted for lying about what your sources say.
uh, finds a way
Who knew Houston, Houston, Do You Read? would be so prophetic?
Thank you for proving to everyone that reading comprehension is not your forte. How you could come to bizarre conclusions like that is baffling, but I have a feeling it's because you prefer your feelings over facts.