Reply With QuoteIt really is.
It's not my fault I just finished up genetics and cell energetics.Originally Posted by Josh
Well, I guess it's my fault.
It really is.
can't wake up
Opaque just got done taking every class.
Braaaaaaainssssss
Are you high? The experiments reverted adult cells back to embryonic stem cells with the DNA's fun nubs grown back. No, they're not your current cells when they're in the syringe. Yes, they are your current cells as soon as the lab-grown-from-your-own-DNA-and-young-as-a-spring-chicken lungs get shoved into your chest cavity and sewn in place. Hell, they're your current cells as soon as the syringe gets plunged into your ass and the cells say to themselves "Hey, this looks like an ass. Start making ass".
Can't please everybody.One big problem though, is that the random attachment of Teomeres doesn't help people who's cells have already degraded past the Telomere range
Did you even read? They can turn any cell into a stem cell now. So yeah. Now our bodies are composed entirely of stem cells. Just add 4 million dollars.Not to fucking mention that in both those studies they simply showed what stem cells do, which, shocker, doesn't solve our problem as our bodies are not composed entirely of stem cells.
Christ Crispies, you did read and you still wrote that previous sentence. Mind = blownThat research shows a naturally occurring phenomena which could help us find a way to do this to our pre-existing cells,
Fixed.It's as if I said we still can't restore the length of our DNA's fun nubs and you linked to a study showing where we already restored the length of DNA fun nubs. No shit.
Last edited by Cheebs; 24 May 2011 at 02:33 PM.
This sentence is my favorite.
Yes, of course. That's how stem cells work.
How does that replace the DNA in your current cells or stop those new cells from losing telomeres every time they divide once they've become a heart, eye or lung cell? How does that solve the problem of DNA polymerase not connecting to the end of DNA during replication? That doesn't solve the problem I'm talking about. It doesn't make your current cells not lose information when they divide and it's not a treatment you could give to a gamete to make the child it produces never has those problems. How are you having such a hard time with this? All you're talking about is replacing a cell with a different cell (essentially). It's like if I said we needed a way to keep hearts from failing and you linked me to a study where they did heart transplants. It's not the same thing.
I did read, but I also comprehend. Lets say, for example you dumped 4 million into doing this to every cell in your body (I'm sure the real cost would be much more) what happens when they stop functioning like stem cells? Oh, that's right, the same thing they did the first time that happened: they start losing sections of DNA every time they divide and they have nothing replacing the telomeres anymore. What you're talking about it a patch that isn't even being done, it's been done to individual cells, never even a full human and even if it was done to a full human it would be a temporary change not a permanent thing.Did you even read? They can turn any cell into a stem cell now. So yeah. Now our bodies are composed entirely of stem cells. Just add 4 million dollars.
That's the difference between what I'm saying we're working towards and what you keep linking. Yeah, the shit you're linking to is real, it's applicable to this conversation (in that it's leading to what I'm talking about) but it is not, at all, the end or the complete solution.
Well if you want to do it that way:Fixed.
It's as if I said we still can't permanently fix the problem of DNA segments being lost on replication and you linked to a study showing where we already restored the length of DNA in individual cells using transplants from stem cells to stimulate temporary telomere addition. No shit.
Last edited by Opaque; 24 May 2011 at 02:40 PM.
I really learn when I take classes. I don't just try to pass tests.
It would be different if I was wrong about this, but as usual Cheebs cannot connect the pieces and I'm, for who knows why, trying to help him understand the difference between observing what something does, applying what something does and finally building a completely different piece of tech that currently doesn't exist based on what we find in those earlier applications.
can't wake up
I've been there, bro. But one class does not make one an expert. You just sound like a know-it-all asshole.
Nordic Warrior
I really helped open up the science master can of worms. It is an interesting topic of discussion nonetheless.
I have essentially three years of bio under my belt if you count getting full stars on the AP bio test in High School, with a year and a half of that being relative to this discussion. Much more than your average person takes, and based on my friends that just got their Masters in Biology, about as much as you ever need unless you specifically major in genetics. All you guys who have graduated from college know full well that on many subjects there's only so many semesters you need before you really get everything you need to know about it other than application, especially for discussions like this.
He's wrong about us having a viable, full body, permanent and available solution to the problem I brought up. I'm not going to let him think otherwise just because he's stupid, because then it makes me look like I think he's right, which he is nowhere near.
Plus, lets be honest, I could have a doctorate in any of these fields I've ever discussed and TNL would still think I don't know anything about the topic I'm talking about. It's a stigma I'll likely carry here forever because I was a dumb kid a decade ago, so I don't let it get to me. Besides, to not use the things I know to tell idiots like Cheebs that they're oversimplifying an enormous obstacle, would be doing myself a great disservice. Especially since argument on TNL is a great tool for retention.
Last edited by Opaque; 24 May 2011 at 02:49 PM.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks