3-D Printing your next Organ

[MichaeltheGreat]

And how was Moses able to save microbial life without electron microscopes and petri-dishes?

That ark must have been full of microbial life. Ooooooowwwwwwhhhhhhheeeeeeee that musta been some kind of stench. Oh, and don't forget all the species of parasites, too.

[Ben Kenobi]

Did you READ THE ****ING LINK?

Umm, yeah I did.

The article DOESN'T EXIST - it has been retracted, as it was INCORRECT. You linked to nothing. There is no article.

Works fine for me. Dunno how you could screw that one up, MtG.

AND, ta da, you made a general statement that embryonic stem cells are never required, for anything.

Actually, the argument I made is that adult stem cells are better.

Cancer treatment (the subject of the journal) is not the full scope of embryonic stem cells.

The point being that the adult stem cells are actually working. And that you can get them to change into other cells.

You call me "dishonest" in this thread when you claim authority from a non-existent journal article, in the assumption nobody will follow the link?

I expect people to be able to click on a link successfully. It's a skill that the modern world of today requires...

I don't accept a retracted article rejected and removed from a peer-reviewed journal, sorry.

You can't even click on the link successfully when it was given to you! This has to be the lamest argument ever.

Identity != personhood.

According to whom? You? Science says there is continuity of the person from conception onwards. It's already been proven and was proven 30 years ago. This is settled science.

Your identity after death doesn't change either.

Yeah? And? Living things come from other living things. You don't get living things from dead things. Sperm is alive, the egg is alive, the unborn child is alive and the toddler is alive. Unbroken chain.

Yep, that's a blob of cells at that point, not a person.

You once looked like that MtG. We could have taken a sample and proven that this was in fact, you.

LMFAO, Yes, in the Beniverse, where we grab one "fact" without regard for its scope or meaning and say "that proves me right!"

It's not especially difficult science. This is how reproduction works.

[BlackCat]

Works fine for me. Dunno how you could screw that one up, MtG.

Try to click on "This article has been retracted"

[Elok]

Who is the dumbest here:

BK, for arguing so obtusely?
You guys, for persistently arguing with him despite overwhelming evidence that YOU CANNOT MAKE HIM ACKNOWLEDGE DEFEAT in even the smallest matter?
Or me, for reminding you of the above despite overwhelming evidence that you will continue to whack your heads against the brick wall?

[Ben Kenobi]

load your camels and pack your asses isn't logistics. Load out for the ark? Gathering of construction materials?

You're seriously making this argument? Really? Pyramids alone disprove you. Oh, wait. You must believe they were built by Aliens...

That's engineering, math and applied science, not fundamental science

You're really making this argument? Wow. Just wow. Biology is fundamental but math is not?

I'd dump Ptolemy from that list

He took observational evidence and devised a theory that fit the observational evidence to within specific tolerances. Just because his theory was incorrect doesn't mean that he wasn't a scientist. You could use his system to predict the movements of the planets and their location. There's a reason he was used for 1500 years.

Christianity liked the Ptolemaic world view, discounted what it didn't like, and instead of any scientific development, you had centuries of muddling with alchemy

Which is why Catholicism founded the whole 'university' system in the middle ages.

Applied engineering and applied math do not equate with the scientific method per se, although they do require a sort of intellectual rigor.

I asked you a question. Who was the first to use the scientific method in the way we understand it today?

I'm really 335 years old and I fought alongside Nelson at Trafalgar. <-- There's textual evidence. Self-referential statements are not evidence.

Hrm? Genesis is a compilation. The later stuff, everything from Abraham onwards with some absolutely fascinating stuff in the first 10 chapters or so. The first ten chapters is much, much older than the rest of Genesis. My question then - is when Genesis was put together in the Penteteuch, where did the first 10 chapters come from? And how far do they really go back? If you look at the oldest Hebrew sources that we do have, first part of Genesis does some things differently then the rest of the Genesis. That is what I meant by textual evidence.

I have heard numerous deacons and priests involved with Catholic education who quite readily state it's all allegory. As far as what you believe or your argument, no problem - I don't care. You are free to act on your beliefs. The line ends at imposing your belief system on others.

Imposing your belief system on other people through the public school system is apparently A-OK with you. I don't see why we should do anything differently. You say one thing - but your actions are very, very different.

There's no mention of bringing forth kids at all

This is an argument from silence. Absense of Evidence! = Evidence of absence. God specifying that eve will only NOW suffer pains in childbirth assumes that prior to the fall, she would not have suffered any pains from giving birth at all. What cause would God have to prevent her from having birth pains, if he did not intend for eve to get pregnant?

They covered their genitals in shame. Didn't say they made full suits of clothes.

And prior to that they had no inkling or need for clothes. Why would they?

I didn't cite it because it's irrelevant

Given that I quoted it word for word, it is relevant.

Since when does "not good for man to be alone" = "he needs to get laid" and "helper suitable for him" = "something to ****"

And people say I'm the monk.

I find idiots who read into the Bible things which are simply not stated while playing games with jumping into and out of literal interpretation as it suits them to be an irritant.

I find athiests who misinterpret scripture to be boring.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Umm, yeah I did.

Works fine for me. Dunno how you could screw that one up, MtG.

Then you're blind or a liar or you typoed the link. Or you're too obtuse to understand or admit what "retracted" means and the implication for the claims in the article. There's an abstract, and a big fat link right above, which I quoted, which states the article has been retracted. How convenient to ignore that little detail, huh?

Actually, the argument I made is that adult stem cells are better.
The point being that the adult stem cells are actually working. And that you can get them to change into other cells.
I expect people to be able to click on a link successfully. It's a skill that the modern world of today requires...
You can't even click on the link successfully when it was given to you! This has to be the lamest argument ever.

Instead of being a troll or tool, why don't you own up to the fact that your so-called evidence has been withdrawn as admittedly incorrect by the original authors, per the statement I quoted previously.

You wouldn't know science if it walked up to you and introduced itself and shook your hand. The authors have scientific integrity. They were challenged on their claims, went back and tried to reproduce their results, failed to do so, so they retracted the paper, saying in effect, "you know, we're wrong - we can reproduce that, and we suspect our original results were based on contamination, so we're retracting this paper."

Good for them, that's the scientific method and integrity for you. You should study that point hard, because they're both alien concepts to you.

According to whom? You? Science says there is continuity of the person from conception onwards. It's already been proven and was proven 30 years ago. This is settled science.

"Continuity of the person" is not a scientific construct. It is philosophical.

Yeah? And? Living things come from other living things. You don't get living things from dead things. Sperm is alive, the egg is alive, the unborn child is alive and the toddler is alive. Unbroken chain.

Unbroken chain, so now we confer legal personhood on sperm and eggs? "Alive" is irrelevant. The hangnail I just trimmed off my finger is alive too. So is the cat on my lap. So are cancer cells, for that matter.

You once looked like that MtG. We could have taken a sample and proven that this was in fact, you.

No, I spontaneously formed myself from nothingness. It is written in the Holy Book of the Church of Dog, so it must be true.

You could have proven that the DNA matches betwen the blastocyst that eventually became me. I wasn't a person as a blastocyst, nor were you or anyone else. There wasn't a "me" at the time to have any stake in, or interest in, whether that blastocyst developed into an embryo or later a fetus and then an "unborn child." That blob of cells is just that - a blob of cells. No organs at all, no bones, no internal structure at all. Fundamentally, not even as advanced as a hydra at that point. So sorry, no me, you or anyone else in there. Nobody home, regardless of whether the organism has a distinct DNA signature.

A "person" is a legal construct, it is not a construct of science. Clone a Neanderthal or better yet, an Australopithecine. Is it a "person?" That is a legal and social decision. Not one that is "proven" by science, except maybe in the Beniverse.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Who is the dumbest here:

BK, for arguing so obtusely?
You guys, for persistently arguing with him despite overwhelming evidence that YOU CANNOT MAKE HIM ACKNOWLEDGE DEFEAT in even the smallest matter?
Or me, for reminding you of the above despite overwhelming evidence that you will continue to whack your heads against the brick wall?

It's entertainment value to clear my head from writing a paper about differentiating types of LHV and HHV measurement testing, applying those to different types of biomass fuels, and then adjusting the tested values to more accurately reflect field conditions in a live biomass plant.

[MichaeltheGreat]

You're seriously making this argument? Really? Pyramids alone disprove you. Oh, wait. You must believe they were built by Aliens...

No, it was built in a grossly inefficient way by a dominant regional emplier using massive amounts of slave labor. Little advantages not relevant to Noah and his magic project, which is my point of reference.

You're really making this argument? Wow. Just wow. Biology is fundamental but math is not?

"Math" is not science, nimrod.

He took observational evidence and devised a theory that fit the observational evidence to within specific tolerances. Just because his theory was incorrect doesn't mean that he wasn't a scientist. You could use his system to predict the movements of the planets and their location. There's a reason he was used for 1500 years.

He took a subset of observations and made things fit to fairly broad tolerances. Ask Giordano Bruno and Galileo why Ptolemy was used. Copernicus didn't take much crap over his publication for the simple reason that he died before the Church could have a barbecue.

I asked you a question. Who was the first to use the scientific method in the way we understand it today?

"The first" is debatable and a red herring. So I'm ignoring your parsing every single ****ing word.

Hrm? Genesis is a compilation. The later stuff, everything from Abraham onwards with some absolutely fascinating stuff in the first 10 chapters or so. The first ten chapters is much, much older than the rest of Genesis. My question then - is when Genesis was put together in the Penteteuch, where did the first 10 chapters come from? And how far do they really go back? If you look at the oldest Hebrew sources that we do have, first part of Genesis does some things differently then the rest of the Genesis. That is what I meant by textual evidence.

There's no actual evidence. The first 10 chapters are written in a different style and they refer to a different, earlier part of the story timeline. It is only an assumption that they are significantly older. There is simply no evidence beyond the oldest scrolls that have been discovered to date.

Imposing your belief system on other people through the public school system is apparently A-OK with you. I don't see why we should do anything differently. You say one thing - but your actions are very, very different.

Oh, yes, because I'm controlling the curriculum in public schools. Sorry if biblical indoctrination and creation theory don't pass muster as "equivalent" science worth teaching.

This is an argument from silence. Absense of Evidence! = Evidence of absence. God specifying that eve will only NOW suffer pains in childbirth assumes that prior to the fall, she would not have suffered any pains from giving birth at all.

When you argue for the completeness and infallibility of a writing, "inspired by God, God's word" and all that nonsense, then sorry, gaps are relevent.

And prior to that they had no inkling or need for clothes. Why would they?

They wouldn't because they're even more mythical then Ken and Barbie.

Given that I quoted it word for word, it is relevant.

The fact you quote something and read into it what isn't there does not create relevance.

And people say I'm the monk.

No, we just talk about your lack of reading comprehension. Oh, and you could open the can of worms about how fundie Christians say the Bible is "the Word of God" but then have to go add, delete and shift meanings as convenient, which their own interpretation. One would assume that God would be a more concise writer with a better sense of continuity.

I find athiests who misinterpret scripture to be boring.

I am the High Patriarch of the Church of Dog. Sorry if I don't read into what isn't stated in your scripture. I'll leave that for you.

[Donegeal]

MtG! DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!!!

[MichaeltheGreat]

It's poison.

[PLATO]

[MichaeltheGreat]

I'm done with my arcane work paper now, so Ben's nonsense no longer has entertainment value.

[Ben Kenobi]

Instead of being a troll or tool, why don't you own up to the fact that your so-called evidence has been withdrawn as admittedly incorrect by the original authors, per the statement I quoted previously.

So far the score is 1 cited article to none. Fine, I'll move onto the very next one.

http://www.cell.com/abstract/S0092-8674(12)01501-2

Differentiated cells possess a remarkable genomic plasticity that can be manipulated to reverse or change developmental commitments

PWNT

You wouldn't know science if it walked up to you and introduced itself and shook your hand. The authors have scientific integrity.

Uh, yeah, which is why I actually cited scientific evidence to back me up. While you, have provided nothing. You've simply branded yourself as 'the side that believes in science'. That's not science. Where's the evidence that supports your presuppositions? I don't see you citing anything.

They were challenged on their claims, went back and tried to reproduce their results, failed to do so, so they retracted the paper, saying in effect, "you know, we're wrong - we can reproduce that, and we suspect our original results were based on contamination, so we're retracting this paper."

That's still not proof that their results were wrong - they simply haven't been able to meet the burden of proof. Which is fine. There are plenty of other studies out there...

Good for them, that's the scientific method and integrity for you. You should study that point hard, because they're both alien concepts to you.

Well, seeing as I actually provided scientific evidence, I'm not sure what you have to say about that. You've provided no evidence to support your position. I have.

"Continuity of the person" is not a scientific construct. It is philosophical.

We identify a person by their DNA code. The DNA doesn't change from conception onwards. Ergo - it is fair to say that a person's life begins at conception.

Unbroken chain, so now we confer legal personhood on sperm and eggs? "Alive" is irrelevant. The hangnail I just trimmed off my finger is alive too. So is the cat on my lap. So are cancer cells, for that matter.

I love how you brand anything you don't like as 'irrelevant'. Yes, the embryo is alive. That is why the embryo grows and develops. An embryo is also a different type of cell than your fingernail. Gosh. Science trumps ignorance. It's also a different type of cell from a sperm or an egg, and sperm has only half the genetic information of an embryo, so they are two different things. If you knew anything about the science of reproduction you would know this already.

No, I spontaneously formed myself from nothingness. It is written in the Holy Book of the Church of Dog, so it must be true.

Still doesn't rebut the point that you did look like that at that age. We all did.

You could have proven that the DNA matches betwen the blastocyst that eventually became me.

So when did 'you' become "you"?

I wasn't a person as a blastocyst, nor were you or anyone else.

You were you at that age. That is a scientific fact. It could and could have rather easily been proven.

There wasn't a "me" at the time to have any stake in, or interest in, whether that blastocyst developed into an embryo or later a fetus and then an "unborn child."

Yes, there was a "you" at that point in time. If there wasn't a "you" at that point in time, you would never have existed.

That blob of cells is just that - a blob of cells. No organs at all, no bones, no internal structure at all.

And? that is what people look like at that age.

Nobody home, regardless of whether the organism has a distinct DNA signature.

What organism? You had your own DNA code at that age, and we could confirm that this was the case.

A "person" is a legal construct, it is not a construct of science. Clone a Neanderthal or better yet, an Australopithecine. Is it a "person?" That is a legal and social decision. Not one that is "proven" by science, except maybe in the Beniverse.

That still doesn't change the fact that you did exist at that point, and it could be proven this was in fact you. This is science, MtG. Until you get this, you are going to be wrong here and science will, as it usually is, trump superstition.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Sorry, troll, you're no longer amusing. You misunderstand the abstract of the paper you cite. The paper discusses how leprosy bacterium accomplish this:

Here, we show that the leprosy bacterium hijacks this property to reprogram adult Schwann cells, its preferred host niche, to a stage of progenitor/stem-like cells (pSLC) of mesenchymal trait by downregulating Schwann cell lineage/differentiation-associated genes and upregulating genes mostly of mesoderm development. Reprogramming accompanies epigenetic changes and renders infected cells highly plastic, migratory, and immunomodulatory. We provide evidence that acquisition of these properties by pSLC promotes bacterial spread by two distinct mechanisms: direct differentiation to mesenchymal tissues, including skeletal and smooth muscles, and formation of granuloma-like structures and subsequent release of bacteria-laden macrophages. These findings support a model of host cell reprogramming in which a bacterial pathogen uses the plasticity of its cellular niche for promoting dissemination of infection and provide an unexpected link between cellular reprogramming and host-pathogen interaction.

Nothing to do with human use of stem cells for research. Everything to do with the systemic spread of leprosy through the body by leprosy bacterium. The direct genetic interaction of a pathogen with infected organism for the specific purpose of spreading itself. Fascinating stuff, but not even close to what you claim it is.

There are two conclusions here: One possibility is you're so ignorant and/or desperate to "prove" your belief system that you simply don't understand the science and you google adult stem cells and seize on anything with the words without the slightest understanding of the scope and meaning.

The other is that you're just a game-playing troll.

Either way, you're a waste of time and not worth further response.

That still doesn't change the fact that you did exist at that point, and it could be proven this was in fact you. This is science, MtG. Until you get this, you are going to be wrong here and science will, as it usually is, trump superstition.

Last one, we're done here. You can play all the word games you want. There is no "you" "me" "anyone" in an early embryo, without your mythical construct of a "soul" or some other fantasy. There is no functioning forebrain. No memory, thought, anything other than reflexive response that is the same as any vertebrate and many invertebrate embryos. At the blastocyst stage, there's not even that. There's a clump of cells - no organs, no skin, nothing but a clump of cells. If you think "personhood" is nothing more than DNA, you're a sad, shriveled little being, so cling to your fantasy that something not much more advanced at that point than an amoeba is a "person." Have at it, all yours. And if calling that point of view "science" floats your boat, bon voyage.

[Dinner]

Ben is pretty much a useless waste of space.