Plant/Animal Hybrid

[LoungeMachine]

Bitch, it's my 9th Amendment right to derail any thread I see fit. So fucking deal with it.

Have to admit I need to look up the 9th.



Fuck, had no idea today had homework involved.

cunt

[LoungeMachine]

Hmmm...

Seems to me to be an ambiguous catch-all.

But I guess I have a 9th. amendment right to keep this thread here, and to call you a fag.



Can I go play now?

[Blackflag]

Made you look.

[LoungeMachine]

Made you look.

indeed.

But I'm smarter for it....

well, not really, but wtf.

[hideyoursheep]

Second, if you read a source more interesting than "msnbc," you'll find that the timing doesn't support your point. The researchers are saying it's a slug that took on plant traits. Not a plant that became an animal.
.

The researchers at Ancestry.com help you with that one?

[sadaist]

Old news. We've been watching things evolve with plants for a while now.

[Nickdfresh]

I don't know about the theological aspects, but it's great that I can get my serving of veggies and meat in one convenient source! Escargo Sea Slugs I say!! Mmm, sauteed with garlic butter !!

[sadaist]

I don't know about the theological aspects, but it's great that I can get my serving of veggies and meat in one convenient source! Escargo Sea Slugs I say!! Mmm, sauteed with garlic butter !!

Ewwwww.

I actually tried Escargot once. Went on a cruise & the meals were free. Figured I'd never pay for them, so why not try them just to see. Tasted like sauteed mushrooms, but a bit squishier? Slimier? Snail-ier?

[sadaist]

Makes me remember this article I read a couple days ago. The funniest thing is that not one of the scientists has tried it yet. LOL. "I'm not gonna try it, you try it".


Stem Cell Pork: Scientists Grow Artificial Meat In Lab

Stem Cell Pork: Scientists Grow Artificial Meat In Lab

LONDON — Call it pork in a petri dish – a technique to turn pig stem cells into strips of meat that scientists say could one day offer a green alternative to raising livestock, help alleviate world hunger, and save some pigs their bacon.

Dutch scientists have been growing pork in the laboratory since 2006, and while they admit they haven't gotten the texture quite right or even tasted the engineered meat, they say the technology promises to have widespread implications for our food supply.

"If we took the stem cells from one pig and multiplied it by a factor of a million, we would need one million fewer pigs to get the same amount of meat," said Mark Post, a biologist at Maastricht University involved in the In-vitro Meat Consortium, a network of publicly funded Dutch research institutions that is carrying out the experiments.

Post describes the texture of the meat as sort of like scallop, firm but a little squishy and moist. That's because the lab meat has less protein content than conventional meat.

Several other groups in the U.S., Scandinavia and Japan are also researching ways to make meat in the laboratory, but the Dutch project is the most advanced, said Jason Matheny, who has studied alternatives to conventional meat at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore and is not involved in the Dutch research.

In the U.S., similar research was funded by NASA, which hoped astronauts would be able to grow their own meat in space. But after growing disappointingly thin sheets of tissue, NASA gave up and decided it would be better for its astronauts to simply eat vegetarian.

To make pork in the lab, Post and colleagues isolate stem cells from pigs' muscle cells. They then put those cells into a nutrient-based soup that helps the cells replicate to the desired number.

So far the scientists have only succeeded in creating strips of meat about 1 centimeter (a half inch) long; to make a small pork chop, Post estimates it would take about 30 days of cell replication in the lab.

There are tantalizing health possibilities in the technology.

Fish stem cells could be used to produce healthy omega 3 fatty acids, which could be mixed with the lab-produced pork instead of the usual artery-clogging fats found in livestock meat.

"You could possibly design a hamburger that prevents heart attacks instead of causing them," Matheny said.

Post said the strips they've made so far could be used as processed meat in sausages or hamburgers. Their main problem is reproducing the protein content in regular meat: In livestock meat, protein makes up about 99 percent of the product; the lab meat is only about 80 percent protein. The rest is mostly water and nucleic acids.

None of the researchers have actually eaten the lab-made meat yet, but Post said the lower protein content means it probably wouldn't taste anything like pork.

The Dutch researchers started working with pork stem cells because they had the most experience with pigs, but said the technology should be transferable to other meats, like chicken, beef and lamb.

Some experts warn lab-made meats might have potential dangers for human health.

"With any new technology, there could be subtle impacts that need to be monitored," said Emma Hockridge, policy manager at Soil Association, Britain's leading organic organization.

As with genetically modified foods, Hockridge said it might take some time to prove the new technology doesn't harm humans. She also said organic farming relies on crop and livestock rotation, and that taking animals out of the equation could damage the ecosystem.

Some experts doubted lab-produced meat could ever match the taste of real meat.

"What meat tastes like depends not just on the genetics, but what you feed the animals at particular times," said Peter Ellis, a biochemistry expert at King's College London. "Part of our enjoyment of eating meat depends on the very complicated muscle and fat structure...whether that can be replicated is still a question."

If it proves possible, experts say growing meat in laboratories instead of raising animals on farmland would do wonders for the environment.

Hanna Tuomisto, who studies the environmental impact of food production at Oxford University said that switching to lab-produced meat could theoretically lower greenhouse gas emissions by up to 95 percent. Both land and water use would also drop by about 95 percent, she said.

"In theory, if all the meat was replaced by cultured meat, it would be huge for the environment," she said. "One animal could produce many thousands of kilograms of meat." In addition, lab meat can be nurtured with relatively few nutrients like amino acids, fats and natural sugars, whereas livestock must be fed huge amounts of traditional crops.

Tuomisto said the technology could potentially increase the world's meat supply and help fight global hunger, but that would depend on how many factories there are producing the lab-made meat.

Post and colleagues haven't worked out how much the meat would cost to produce commercially, but because there would be much less land, water and energy required, he guessed that once production reached an industrial level, the cost would be equivalent to or lower than that of conventionally produced meat.

One of the biggest obstacles will be scaling up laboratory meat production to satisfy skyrocketing global demand. By 2050, the Food and Agriculture Organization predicts meat consumption will double from current levels as growing middle classes in developing nations eat more meat.

"To produce meat at an industrial scale, we will need very large bioreactors, like those used to make vaccines or pasteurized milk," said Matheny. He thought lab-produced meat might be on the market within the next few years, while Post said it could take about a decade.

For the moment, the only types of meat they are proposing to make this way are processed meats like minced meat, hamburgers or hot dogs.

"As long as it's cheap enough and has been proven to be scientifically valid, I can't see any reason people wouldn't eat it," said Stig Omholt, a genetics expert at the University of Life Sciences in Norway. "If you look at the sausages and other things people are willing to eat these days, this should not be a big problem."

[Nitro Express]

It looks like a green vagina. Captain Kirk would hit it in a hot minute.

[bueno bob]

First of all, what religion says there can't be a plant/animal hybrid? Elivis could just as easily say that God created it. So you're not making a point.

Defeating the fact that endosymbiotic theory supports evolution, which goes against the theory of creation. Not to strain your obvious 2nd grade education on that or anything, numbnuts.

Second, if you read a source more interesting than "msnbc," you'll find that the timing doesn't support your point. The researchers are saying it's a slug that took on plant traits. Not a plant that became an animal.

Definitely does a lot to support evolutionists theory of intermediary species, something creationists are always complaining DOESN'T exist...unless you want to take the position that msnbc made all this up or something; if so, feel free...

Third:
"The Front Line The ongoing discussion on the War Against Terrorism. The soldiers of the DLR Army strike back. In honor of the victims of September 11, 2001. We will never forget."

So this still doesn't belong in the front like, dickhead.

Well, then, I'll make sure to restrict all future discussions here in the "front like" to 9/11 and the war on terror, douchebag. Will you quit wetting your panties in agitation over it if I promise that? I know you're super sensitive about who posts what where, and god knows I don't want to hurt your sensitive feelings, pussy...

[ZahZoo]

This completely bucks the creationist theory. Biological evolution has been proven a long time now.

And no you can't have it both ways and say God created all this with the evolution option built in...

[LoungeMachine]

And no you can't have it both ways and say God created all this with the evolution option built in...

Why not?

Seems to me the creationists / bible thumpers just make it up as they go along, or they simply pick and choose which parts of the handbook they wish to interpret in their favor.

God simply planned this. It is all God's plan.

[chefcraig]

Look, I have some issues with Darwinism, and they have nothing to do with a belief in God or the natural order of things. The problem with Darwinism is it is based entirely upon the assumption of things. Some guy finds a series of fossils of species that died out, and jumps to the conclusion that it either crapped out entirely or evolved into something else. And this is tied together by DNA. Well so fucking what? You can't make soup without water being involved somewhere in the process. If anything, DNA could be a coincidence just like the water, rather than a factor tying everything together. And who's to say these species didn't simply materialize one day, like some particularly annoying relatives over the holidays, or had existed all along - yet nobody happened to notice them because they tended to be anti-social pricks? And that points out another problem with evolution: The essence of time. You're telling me that a simple, single celled creature "evolved" into my simply-cranky Aunt Pauline in only about 4 billion or so years? A single celled creature has around 250 genes, whereas a human has around 150 thousand. How did they get there, and how did they get there so fast? It sure wasn't from eating Wheaties.

So scientists take coincidence, combine it with assumption and thus come to a conclusion. In effect, this sort of limited thinking is a form of religion in and of itself. It is the blind faith of belief in things that may or may have not ever happened, based solely on an interpretation of what some altogether fuzzy and loosely gathered facts might represent. Doesn't that sound like some fairly faulty logic? It would make more rational sense to blame things on Col. Mustard in the Conservatory with a candlestick.

[Nickdfresh]

Look, I have some issues with Darwinism...

So do I. We're not adhering to it and not enough people are allowed to make their inferior DNA extinct because of the constructs of society that celebrates douchebaggery that would otherwise take care of itself!