Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science News

Mutant Mosquitos 28

Posted by michael from the japanese-encephalitis dept.
guacamolefoo writes "Get me Stryker now! Mutant mosquitos are spreading West Nile Virus and malaria! And to think you thought that X-men 3 would be a rehash of the Dark Phoenix saga. Real life is much more interesting."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mutant Mosquitos More

Mutant Mosquitos

Comments Filter:
  • I have no idea what any of this means.
    Stryker?
    Dark Phoenix saga?

    And to think I thought I was dorky.
    • This could be a direct side-effect of overuse of a pesticide.

      It means that the superbugs, which are harder to kill now, can still pass on the regular bugs to us. We just have to find a new way to kill them.

      This is the kind of thing that is feared will happen as doctors continue to over-prescribe anti-biotics. The anti-biotics will expose small numbers bacteria in people (though not necessarily enough to cause a disease) to a selective factor: either they die, or they don't. If they don't that means th

    • The poster is making references to the X-Men since it's about mutants, albeit very different types of mutants.

      Stryker is the villain in X-Men 2. Another version of the same character was the villain in the X-Men comic book storyline "God Loves, Man Kills" which the movie is aparently similar to.

      Dark Phoenix Saga refers to an X-Men comic storyline in which Jean Grey is taken over by the Phoenix force and tries to kill everybody. I haven't seen X2 but apparently it suggests that the next sequel will be base
      • Near the end, Jean valiantly gives her life to save the team.
        There is much sadness.
        Camera cuts to a placid lake created when dam burst (killing Jean).
        Camera cuts to Prof X, who smiles & says that he thinks everything will be OK, or words to that effect.
        Odds are, he sensed Jean's mind.
        X-3 will be Dark Phoenix, or I'll be seduced by Natalie Portman.

  • I know I saw this before... (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ...specifically this version [independent.co.uk], but I can't recall whether I read about it on fark.com, news.google.com, or if it is a slashdot dupe.

  • surprise? (Score:3, Funny)

    by rumpledstiltskin ( 528544 ) on Tuesday May 13, 2003 @05:20PM (#5949099) Homepage Journal
    does this surprise anyone? Darwin's natural selection at work maybe? the obvrious answer's in the article anyway:
    Developing new insecticides that can specifically inhibit the mutant form of the enzyme could be crucial in overcoming the spread of resistance, they added.
    of course, that doesn't necessarily protect against a different mutation. it's a never ending battle. Perhaps a better solution: mutating humans so our blood is poison to the mosquito?
    • Jesus man. That would only evolve resistant mosquitoes to human blood. We're probably more likely to be bitten than they are to get pesticided. You're right about the never ending battle part though.

    • Re:surprise? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Daniel Dvorkin ( 106857 )
      does this surprise anyone? Darwin's natural selection at work maybe?
      Well, it may come as a surprise to the creationists. One of their standard canards is that "mutations are invariably harmful, so how could complex organisms evolve through a series of mutations?" Well, here ya go -- a simple and obviously useful mutation with far-reaching consequences.

      • Re:surprise? (Score:2, Interesting)

        by VendingMenace ( 613279 )
        It may come as a suprise to the creationists?

        It may come as a suprise to you that not all creationists deny that evolution happens. I believe that their main problem is how this whole deal got started. They claim that science has no good explination as to how the first life form came to be (let alone all the complex chemicals needed!). And as far as this claim goes, it is quite valid. Anyone that belives that science has explained this fundamental problem is just deluding themselves and (sadly) is just
        • Unfortunately "creationist" is one of those terms that often means 10 different things to 10 different people. But as it's typically used in the US (especially if it's used in a derogatory sense) it means someone who believes in a literal, recent creation event and who does deny that macroevolution has happened. According to polls, up to 50% of Americans may be in this category, although I suspect many of them are people who answer "Yes" to any question they don't really understand.

          "Theistic evolutionist"
        • Nicely put. And to the other guy that responded to your post as well... the creationist lable use is getting a bit broad these days.
        • the scientific answer is "we don't know yet" a reasonable answer if not a "good explanation" as of yet... there are a few hints as to how and why it's possible.

          The creationist's have a great explanation in comparison, "and it had a big bushy grey beard too!"

          The thing is, the the relativism of uncertainty, while you cannot prove any explanation 100% correct, you can identify things at 0% correct.

          e.g. the probability function for a particle. Nowhere can the probability be 100% (the 100% is spread out), bu

  • Big surprize? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Muhammar ( 659468 ) on Tuesday May 13, 2003 @05:40PM (#5949274)
    Just induced resistance like with pathogens. This mutation confers resistance to only one common insecticide (Malathion) - so they will use another one.

    In the end, they have to remove breeding ponds, like they have done when building Panama Canal.
    Moskyto swamp solution: Nuke and pave.

  • Speaking of mutants... (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    How's this [reuters.co.uk] for redundancy? A woman with two wombs.

    The scary thing is that mutatations aren't just limited to animals and insects. The human body is a complex thing and one little alteration could mean a change in a subsystem, like this woman's reproductive system.

    It's scary.
    • My wife has a double womb... its not that uncommon.
      • Makes me wonder whether such a "mutation" could be a beneficial or detrimental thing, from an evolutionary standpoint.
        • If we go by the examples of multiple offspring provided within the animal kingdom I would say that multiple uteri are indeed beneficial mutation. The doctor said it was an uncommon or little known variation until about 15 years ago when better scanning technologies came around. Many women have doubles and don't even know becuase theirs may not be complete, very small, or just a non functioning 'spare'.

          In my wifes case they are both active uteri. The only problem she has run into was them getting out of sin

Slashdot Top Deals

Two can Live as Cheaply as One for Half as Long. -- Howard Kandel

Close