Hello Someday,
Your persistence is admirable, but given the content of your series of posts in this thread, it does give the slight impression of someone who is desperate to cling to his erroneous position and won't concede no matter what.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Someday
Errors?
I think the technical error may be on your end.
|
Yes errors. Rather than showing you didn't make any, I think you've just added another one. Let me explain:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Someday
For example: Creating stem cells from skin tissue requires manipulation of the genes. 4 genes need to be manipulated in order to reprogram the cells into stem cells. This was first done on mice.
To quote that article:
"Now, scientists at Whitehead Institute have demonstrated that embryonic stem cells can be created without eggs. By genetically manipulating mature skin cells taken from a mouse, the scientists have transformed these cells back into a pluripotent state, one that appears identical to an embryonic stem cell in every way. No eggs were used, and no embryos destroyed."
This is also true when we are talking about human skin cells:
"At Kyoto University, a team led by Shinya Yamanaka published a paper in Cell showing that differentiated human cells could be reprogrammed to an embryo-like state1 using the same formula that he had previously used to transform differentiated mouse cells, . First the researchers engineered cultured human skin cells (called fibroblasts) so that additional genes could be inserted more easily. The team added viruses engineered to introduce 4 genes (OCT3/4 SOX2, KLF4, and c-MYC) into cultured skin cells collected from adults. After several weeks in culture, the team started to see colonies resembling those formed by human embryonic stem (ES) cells. |
Why so many wasted key strokes to show that those experiments with skin cells involve genetic manipulation? I never said anything to the contrary, did I? The point I corrected you on was when you confused cord blood and adult stem cell research with genetic manipulation in post 10 in this thread. You didn't dispute that the research at Novussanguis doesn't involve genetic manipulation, instead producing in post 12 another url to an old page that showed Catholic church support for research that does include genetic manipulation. The research at Novussanguis doesn't even mention skin cells. So I'm under the impression that you mixed things up, confusing the research at Novussanguis with the example from the BBC page that came up in this thread a few times.
I've just gone through this thread. I think you really have it wrong. If I ever said anything about skin cell experiments not involving genetic manipulation then please tell me where.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Someday
Regarding ANT-OAR, it's not being discussed by anyone hardly at all anymore. It does not appear to have the scientific promise it was originally thought. My point in producing it was simply to show that the Vatican was considering it. You haven't produced a retraction of this. The Vatican never issued a new list of 7 deadly sins, the media has. It does not serve as a retraction, one would hope for something more specific than that. Seven new sins? |
Oh, for the Flying Spaghetti Monsters sake. So now it turns out that the thing you held up was not only old but no longer relevant. And as long as I don't produce an official retraction of something everyone already lost interest in, it trumps a very recent statement that contradicts it? Please.
And that link you produce at the end is another case of different standards for different sides in the debate I think. What a Vatican bishop says in the official Vatican newspaper is not to be counted as anything, but what Jeremy Secrist (did I miss anything, is he the new pope?) says in the *drum roll* Columbia Tribune is credible to the contrary?
You're normally not the christian fundamentalist. Why on FSMs earth this persistent urge to stick up for things that don't do anything to make a person look smarter?
greets,
Peter