Scientists Grow Whole Model of Human Embryo, Without Sperm Or Egg (bbc.com) 149
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the BBC: Scientists have grown an entity that closely resembles an early human embryo, without using sperm, eggs or a womb. The Weizmann Institute team say their "embryo model", made using stem cells, looks like a textbook example of a real 14-day-old embryo. It even released hormones that turned a pregnancy test positive in the lab. The ambition for embryo models is to provide an ethical way of understanding the earliest moments of our lives. This research, published in the journal Nature, is described by the Israeli team as the first "complete" embryo model for mimicking all the key structures that emerge in the early embryo.
Instead of a sperm and egg, the starting material was naive stem cells which were reprogrammed to gain the potential to become any type of tissue in the body. Chemicals were then used to coax these stem cells into becoming four types of cell found in the earliest stages of the human embryo: epiblast cells, which become the embryo proper (or foetus); trophoblast cells, which become the placenta; hypoblast cells, which become the supportive yolk sac; and extraembryonic mesoderm cells. A total of 120 of these cells were mixed in a precise ratio -- and then, the scientists step back and watch.
About 1% of the mixture began the journey of spontaneously assembling themselves into a structure that resembles, but is not identical to, a human embryo. The embryo models were allowed to grow and develop until they were comparable to an embryo 14 days after fertilization. In many countries, this is the legal cut-off for normal embryo research. The hope is embryo models can help scientists explain how different types of cell emerge, witness the earliest steps in building the body's organs or understand inherited or genetic diseases. Already, this study shows other parts of the embryo will not form unless the early placenta cells can surround it. There is even talk of improving in vitro fertilization (IVF) success rates by helping to understand why some embryos fail or using the models to test whether medicines are safe during pregnancy.
Instead of a sperm and egg, the starting material was naive stem cells which were reprogrammed to gain the potential to become any type of tissue in the body. Chemicals were then used to coax these stem cells into becoming four types of cell found in the earliest stages of the human embryo: epiblast cells, which become the embryo proper (or foetus); trophoblast cells, which become the placenta; hypoblast cells, which become the supportive yolk sac; and extraembryonic mesoderm cells. A total of 120 of these cells were mixed in a precise ratio -- and then, the scientists step back and watch.
About 1% of the mixture began the journey of spontaneously assembling themselves into a structure that resembles, but is not identical to, a human embryo. The embryo models were allowed to grow and develop until they were comparable to an embryo 14 days after fertilization. In many countries, this is the legal cut-off for normal embryo research. The hope is embryo models can help scientists explain how different types of cell emerge, witness the earliest steps in building the body's organs or understand inherited or genetic diseases. Already, this study shows other parts of the embryo will not form unless the early placenta cells can surround it. There is even talk of improving in vitro fertilization (IVF) success rates by helping to understand why some embryos fail or using the models to test whether medicines are safe during pregnancy.
Eventually growing a different kind of human? (Score:3)
To me, that's going in a scary direction. Will they eventually grow a different kind of human?
Article: "... ethical issues" (Score:4, Informative)
"... they are not truly "synthetic", as the starting material was cells cultured from a traditional embryo in the laboratory.
Another quote:
"The synthetic embryos do not behave in exactly the same way as normal embryos. And it is unclear how their use in research should be governed."
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Article: "... ethical issues" (Score:2, Insightful)
Or praised for creating an expendable workforce?
Considering the "pro life" crowd is often also "pro slavery" I think this is the perfect motivation for them to redefine "life" to suit their needs once again.
Re: Article: "... ethical issues" (Score:2)
Jesus Christ.
Does that sound like a real person to you? Or maybe a convenient boogyman to rile you up?
Re: (Score:3)
In Red states, those scientists would already be charged with murder.
Maybe, but would it stick? Consider that the anti-abortion crowd normally base their whole bit on the importance of the moment of conception. With these embryos, no conception. From the religious position they are usually working from, would those embryos have a soul, for example? Would they be human at all? The answers seem pretty obvious from a secular humanist perspective and from a pragmatist perspective, but the anti-abortion crowd usually neither secular humanists nor pragmatists.
Re: (Score:2)
It is more like they are creating a type of clone based on cells from an aborted fetus (which came from a conception). Any type of clone is going to raise ethical issues, especially when the cells are taken from some "being" that didn't and couldn't provide informed consent.
I suppose on an ethical scale it is a little better, but probably hardly "in the clear" in most people's minds.
Re: (Score:2)
The naïve ESCs that they use for experiments like this are generally from cell lines that were developed a while back. So they're actually copies of copies of copies that came from a human embryo a while back. Aside from being just an embryo - probably with few enough cells to count on your fingers - and not a fetus, it also won't have been aborted since it almost certainly would have been from an in-vitro fertilization that was never implanted.
Sperm still met egg at some point of course, so I'll grant
Re: (Score:2)
Are we not men?
Re:Eventually growing a different kind of human? (Score:4, Funny)
Are we not men?
We are Devo.
Re: (Score:3)
The human's out of the cat-bag (Score:2)
> scary direction. Will they eventually grow a different kind of human?
Eventually yes! You know there's zillionaires who like to tinker with such, and they own & rule island countries where they can do whatever the hell they want.
Just call me Frank (Score:2)
I have no parents.
But that didn't do anything to my personality, thankfully.
Re: (Score:3)
The idea of growing a new body and then inhabiting it to prolong your life is a pretty old one in science fiction. Goes back to at least _Le Singe_ in 1925. Though the method of inhabiting the body after death is not through a brain chip, and the body in question is not actually a clone of the person who ends up inhabiting it but rather a clone of his brother.
I have to say the major problem with the brain chip idea is an existential one. You're making a digital copy of the original personality. If you make
and if they succeed in creating an actual human (Score:2)
do they achieve god status? I mean as miracles go we can now create:
* light (1st day)
* sky / air (2nd day)
* land, water, plants (3rd day)
* flying and swimming creatures (5th day)
* land animals (6th day)
* rest (7th day)
True, the scale/complexity is much smaller and we haven't created a moon or a sun yet or "started creation" but we're doing pretty well on the rest of the list.
Re: (Score:3)
I have an important question.
If land and the sun weren't created until the third and fourth days, then what exactly was a "day" prior to that? Did God just have an arbitrary unit of time and when he created the planet decided it would rotate in exactly one of those?
Re: (Score:2)
I have an important question.
If land and the sun weren't created until the third and fourth days, then what exactly was a "day" prior to that? Did God just have an arbitrary unit of time and when he created the planet decided it would rotate in exactly one of those?
Well not exactly one of those. The rotation is slowing down, days are getting longer.
He's God though so he calculated how much faster to spin it back then so it would slow down enough to be exactly a day now, when we are advanced enough to ponder the question.
Re: (Score:3)
Stop asking perfectly valid and logical questions.
Re:and if they succeed in creating an actual human (Score:4, Informative)
The word "day" in this context, to me, just means an arbitrary time unit for the narrative. It could have been replaced with Epoch, Millennium, Megaannum, Giga-annum, or something else.
When the Moon first formed some 4.5 billion years ago, the Earth's day was less than 10 hours long. From approximately 2 billion until 600 million years ago, an atmospheric tide driven by the Sun countered the effect of the Moon, keeping Earth’s rotational rate steady and the length of day at a constant 19.5 hours; without this billion-year pause in the slowing of our planet’s rotation, our current 24-hour day would stretch to over 60 hours. https://www.sci.news/otherscie... [sci.news]
So, if you want to imagine a "day" of about 500 million years, then you can fit the Sun/Earth construction time frame to fit the Bible's six day narrative. It's not exact but the Bible's origin story is a metaphor, not a calendar. Anyone that assumes the Sun was created at exactly 12:00:01 on a Monday, 4.6 Billion years ago is reading too much into the story.
Day, 1000 years, what is difference? (Score:2)
Denominations that teach day-age creation rely on these verses to establish that days of Genesis 1 need not be literal:
"A thousand years in your sight / are like a day that has just gone by, / or like a watch in the night." (Psalm 90:4)
"But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." (2 Peter 3:8)
Not to mention that the seventh day doesn't have an "evening and morning" like the others.
In my father's day... (Score:2)
To me it's all very funny. As soon as we start talking about some old written down, oral history of some tribe that otherwise would be an evolutionary and cultural dead-end, that got tacked on to some other stories about that tribe, people get a little nuts. These stories were told and written by all who kept them. They list their ancestors and stories and fables. They talk about the "great power(s)" that shaped and set into motion this universe. Indeed,
Re: (Score:2)
If land and the sun weren't created until the third and fourth days, then what exactly was a "day" prior to that?
It was still a day, it was just dark.
Remember that at the time these myths were created, people didn't have really clear concepts of time, and their idea of cosmology was the sun traveling in a boat through a big waterspace. They also hadn't invented Cartesian logic, so concepts like "definition" and "conclusion" weren't really fully fleshed out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have an important question.
If land and the sun weren't created until the third and fourth days, then what exactly was a "day" prior to that? Did God just have an arbitrary unit of time and when he created the planet decided it would rotate in exactly one of those?
Wow! Nobody has thought of that in 6000 years! What an amazing, insightful, original question! :p
Re: (Score:3)
I am curious about your intention in asking this question.
Are you asking "in earnest," as a believer who simply wants to understand the doctrines? If so, there are resources available to you that are better than this chat forum, as these issues have been discussed ad nauseam throughout history. Consider your church to be a better discussion forum, in that case.
Are you asking as a non-believer who is just curious? If so, you should find a wide variety of answers with a cursory web search, such [answersingenesis.org] as [answersingenesis.org] this [answersingenesis.org] (ju
Re: (Score:2)
It's likely a translation thing. e.g. "In my day, I walked 2 miles to school, uphill both ways." does not refer to a single 24-hour period.
Re: (Score:2)
do they achieve god status?
They need immortality. Humans have always been able to create humans.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People are a lot more then their brain, just consider the sex hormones and control of personality they have, and there are a lot more hormones that go into "you"
Re: (Score:2)
This, my friend, is a question for Eldon Tyrell.
Re: (Score:2)
True, the scale/complexity is much smaller and we haven't created a moon or a sun yet....
We've actually created thousands of them. Satellites are artificial moons.
Re: (Score:2)
As God II, I will NOT care what you do with your wanker or vag. That's not important me, just sing hymns to kiss my neckbeard ass or I'll delete you from the simulation.
Re: (Score:2)
We can save ourselves a step: no rest for the wicked.
Every sperm is sacred (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll bet (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Beyond a certain point, it has to either implant in a uterus, or it dies anyway. These can't ever potentially grow into a human being unless either someone invents an artificial uterus (turns out those do exist, but only for later stages of development once there's already a placenta) or they get a surrogate.
Re: (Score:2)
Note that it says cells that become the placenta, not that it actually has a placenta. So it has the precursors to a placenta, but the placenta itself can't actually form until the embryo embeds into the uterine wall and starts receiving blood.
Re: (Score:2)
"Bible logic" is up there with oxymorons like "Military intelligence" or "Microsoft Works".
Embryoids In the UK. (Score:2)
I, for one... (Score:2)
...welcome the arrival of the Nexus 0.0.1 and look forward to our future Nexus 7 replicant overlords.
What does "ethics" have to do with it? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
An embryo produced naturally by sperm and egg is not a person. There's no conceivable scientific argument that it is, and ethics are not concerned with superstition.
It's not a person yet. Ethics is quite concerned about where to draw the line though. Regardless of the method of creating the embryo.
Superstition is a strawman and not needed. Scientifically and ethically, there must be a point at which the embryo counts as or turns into a person.
Re: (Score:2)
And until it actually is a person, it's basically a parasite. Get over it.
Re: (Score:2)
And until it actually is a person, it's basically a parasite. Get over it.
And when is that exactly?
Re: (Score:2)
Given that we have to determine an arbitrary point in time because that's how the legal system works, that moment would likely be birth. It's the most sensible one and also the one that is easiest to determine without additional examination. At this point, the body is able to function independent from another body, even though additional care is required for it to survive. But at least the basic bodily functions work autonomously now.
Re: (Score:2)
Given that we have to determine an arbitrary point in time because that's how the legal system works, that moment would likely be birth.
So you're happy to kill them any time up until the birth.
And also any time after the birth. [slashdot.org]
Are they even safe from you during the actual birth?
Seems not, you'd happily kill them then too. As long as they are not in your immediate group. [slashdot.org]
Seems a little pointless to have an ethical discussion with you then doesn't it.
Your definition of "person" may as well be, "someone in your group who hasn't annoyed you enough to want to kill, yet."
Everyone else may as well be a farm animal, or at best an NPC.
Re: (Score:2)
It's quite possible to have a discussion about ethics. We are currently having one. Whether that discussion is "ethical" is pretty moot, since the discussion is not about this discussion and whether it's ethical. Discussion whether it's ethical to have a discussion about ethics would eventually lead to a circular discussion.
It may be uncomfortable for you to not being able to guilt-trip me as a cheap shot and I-win button in a debate. I'm sorry, that does not work with me. I do not put human life on a pedes
Re: (Score:2)
There really is little point discussing where the cut off to killing something is with someone who will happily kill anything. There isn't anything to discuss. There is no "winning" there is just the realisation further discussion would be pointless.
How do you discuss where to draw the line, if one party doesn't accept we even need a line?
Re: (Score:2)
Personally I draw the line at "happily" killing someone. The destruction of a life should serve a purpose other than entertainment.
This, though, I extend towards any living organism, that's not limited to humans.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"The line" is nowhere in sight of an embryo. Ethics is not involved unless they start using them for chemical or biological weapons testing or something.
Re: (Score:2)
When it breathes. By law where I am and also by the Bible where God breathes a soul into the fetus, turning it into a person.
Now we can argue about when it breathes and if it is capable of breathing, is it a person before it draws its first breathe.
Re: (Score:2)
When it breathes.
Not a person until it breathes?
So imagine an underwater birth, the baby is swimming around for a while but still not a person yet
By law where I am
That's the ethics part.
also by the Bible where God breathes a soul into the fetus
That's the superstitious nonsense part.
Now we can argue about when it breathes and if it is capable of breathing, is it a person before it draws its first breathe.
So you don't really know after all.
You drew a line in the sand and then it turned out to be a wavy line and you're not really sure where that line is anyway.
I don't know either. We've narrowed it down to more than 14 days but sometime before it starts breathing
Re: (Score:2)
I leave the ethics to the pregnant woman and her Doctor(s) as I'm not in a position to force their hand and everyone has their own ethics, as well as different cultures varying wildly on their ethics.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately the woman and doctor might not get to make that decision, depending on the ethics of politicians where they happen to live.
Re: (Score:2)
Luckily, here in Canada, currently there are no laws on abortion besides the usual on medical procedures. And as far as I know, there are about zero late abortions, perhaps the odd one where the fetus is not viable but generally, prevention is pushed and everyone wants the procedure done as early as possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that embryo were to be implanted in a woman and eventually became a walking talking entity. Would they not be a person? If not, could you own it and use it like a slave? Can it be a citizen? Can it own property? I suspect ethics would have concern for that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>"An embryo produced naturally by sperm and egg is not a person. There's no conceivable scientific argument that it"
If you believe that, then you aren't being honest. The whole logic falls apart when asked "so at what point exactly does an embryo become a person?" And no matter how one answers, a logical and scientific argument can be made to prove it is wrong or at least not completely true. The moment an egg is successfully inseminated and creates a new genetic code, it becomes a new being. Everyth
Re: (Score:2)
I cannot prove with absolute physical and mathematical certainty where your wallet ends and my hand begins, so I guess it's "philosophically debatable" whether my walking off with it constitutes theft. LOL
Your statement that a "being" is created by mixing chemicals despite the absence of brain tissue has no objective meaning. Ethics is not relevant to embryo creation. Only incidentals like who donated the DNA, how they were informed, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
>"Your statement that a "being" is created by mixing chemicals despite the absence of brain tissue has no objective meaning."
So how many brain cells would then make it a "being" or have objective meaning? One? Two? A million? Would they have to be connected yet?
>"Ethics is not relevant to embryo creation. "
Creating it means that it then exists and there are possible ethical considerations beyond just the creation. At what point in development is it not OK to modify it, damage it, starve it, copy
Re: (Score:2)
Again with the obscurantism. If there are no brain cells at all, the question is moot.
It does not, however, mean there is any basis to categorize it as you have. And demanding that I prove a negative before you'll admit that is absurd.
Re: (Score:2)
The moment an egg is successfully inseminated and creates a new genetic code, it becomes a new being.
And if that inseminated egg divides into 3 genetically identical fetuses, we can terminate two as we still have a being with its own genetic code. At that perhaps ethically we should terminate them so as to only have one being.
I'd prefer to follow the Bible, when God breathes a soul into them, they're a person, can live without being a parasite on an individual and it is supposed to be the soul that differentiates people from animals which are usually ethical to kill.
Re: (Score:2)
>"And if that inseminated egg divides into 3 genetically identical fetuses, we can terminate two as we still have a being with its own genetic code. At that perhaps ethically we should terminate them so as to only have one being."
Now we can get more into the ethics of it. I would say no, just because it divided into 3 twins, doesn't make it ethical to kill the other two. But what if the situation came to be that you knew all 3 would die if one were not terminated?
>"I'd prefer to follow the Bible, wh
Lost opportunity (Score:3)
a structure that resembles, but is not identical to, a human embryo
Why not phrase it as : "a structure that is almost, but not quite, completely unlike a human embryo"
Re: Lost opportunity (Score:3)
It's a non-viable fucking clone. But that would trigger the ethics issues, particularly since it's a violation of the law in several countries. (Even at less than 14 days).
Re: (Score:2)
It's a non-viable fucking clone.
I'm pretty sure there was no fucking involved! 8^)
Betty Crocker cake mix. (Score:2)
> Instead of a sperm and egg, the starting material was naive stem cells
So they made a cake with no sugar or flour. They used Betty Crocker cake mix. Oh wait.
How were the stem cells themselves made ? Of what basic materials ? Oh right, sperm and egg.
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares? Just throw the crap out into the bin.
Frankly, 8 billion people on the planet, who gives a fuck about a single one?
Re: (Score:2)
You presumable care about you don't you?
Frankly, 8 billion people on the planet, who gives a fuck about a single one?
So we can kill all 8 billion, as long as we do it one at a time?
When should we stop? When do we change to caring?
Same as your lack of understanding here. [slashdot.org]
Not professing to know the answer. But you seem incapable of even understanding the questions.
Re: (Score:2)
I care about me. But I wouldn't expect you to. Why would you? You don't know me.
Humans are social creatures and as such, we do tend to care about ourselves (ok, that's basic self preservation) and we also care about those in our immediate vicinity (which also serves self preservation, by extension). Caring about someone outside our immediate group, though, is expecting a bit much from an animal that grew up to function in a pack oriented society.
a technical victory, but hardly an ethical one (Score:2)
I'm not sure this how this makes anything more ethical.
a MODEL ? (Score:2)
Scientists have created a complete model? OMG how long before it matures?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
To Be Used for Proteus (Score:2)
you wont believe #8 (Score:2)
And once you don't need a woman to have a baby... (Score:2)
...that'll be the end of women.
The ultimate winners here are going to be all the men who want to be bigger, stronger, and faster women who never have periods. No need to even implant a faux uterus, just scrape a stem cell, and build your baby mini-me in a bottle, and then declare yourself a mother.
Heck, your progeny can take turns transing or not transing, maybe skipping generations as men, or "improved women".
Re:Well... (Score:4, Funny)
The worse thing that I can foresee is that they make having sex illegal eventually.
Re: (Score:2)
Making sex legal but making abortions mandatory?
DO WANT!
Re: (Score:2)
The orgasmatron is a simple workaround.
soft solution (Score:4, Interesting)
Give girls an education, require higher education for basic employment, and make sure men and women have to both work a full-time job in order to have a reasonably comfortable life. They'll have less than 2 children on average under those circumstances and the population will plummet. If you need to ramp the population up again, take away women's rights and restart a patriarchy. Use a theocracy to really jumpstart a patriarchy if you're in a hurry to grow a population. It shouldn't be surprising that the less control women have over their own bodies the more children they have on average.
Re:soft solution (Score:5, Interesting)
Give girls an education, require higher education for basic employment, and make sure men and women have to both work a full-time job in order to have a reasonably comfortable life. They'll have less than 2 children on average under those circumstances and the population will plummet.
Or legally mandate support for women having children without being penalized in their careers. Then those women that want to have more children will choose to do so. This is the key issue.
In many countries like the US, there are lip-service laws to protect women during pregnancy, childbirth, and raising children, but the laws aren't effective. Once the laws are effective, additional children will be born.
Re:soft solution (Score:5, Interesting)
That seems one-sided to me.
The primary reason women see any career-impact from having children is the time off that they must take to raise the children. It would be unfair to employers to mandate that they pay workers who aren't working. Employers have bills to pay, stakeholders to satisfy, and a profit motive, and all of these are good things. A reasonable balance on this is not gender-specific (men have children too, after all) and time-limited to the initial child-rearing period since it is really demanding.
If there is some kind of secondary penalty that women face for having children, one that has nothing to do with their productivity, then that certainly sounds like something that law should prevent. But law should be even-handed and consider both parties' interests, and forcing employers to pay workers who aren't working (due to child-raising or any other cause) is unfair and harmful. Such measures will backfire and motivate employers to find tricky ways to avoid hiring women and work around the law (or just drive said employers out to other countries with more favorable laws).
OrangeTide's post has history on its side. And even in the current day, we see higher birth rates in regions that stick with traditional gender roles (including oppression of women in the form of denying them education, etc.). Such oppression is evil and wrong, and it also gets birth rates up. But I don't think this is any reason to return to such extremes. It would be much better to try measures like you are considering that support child-rearing in a forward-looking way that is not lopsided and unfair.
For example, many men today are opting out of marriage because of the utterly life-destroying consequences of divorce (coupled with the very high risk of divorce). Men are half of the child-rearing equation and so laws that are this unfair to them will certainly drive participation down. Marriage must be made financially safe for men if we are to see more men participating in it. The counter argument is always that women who sacrifice their careers to raise children could wind up financially trapped in an abusive relationship, and their freedom to leave such relationships must be protected by allowing them to continue to receive significant financial support from their ex husbands. Well, a situation that must be unfair to one or the other member of the arrangement will not be sustainable and will not support birth rates, so we are going to have to do better (or birth rates will continue to drop). Blaming and shaming won't fix anything. So it seems that, going forward, people simply should not "sacrifice their careers" for children. If both parents continue to work (after the initial infancy period when it is basically impossible to do so), then both parents will be financially capable of leaving if the need arises, with neither one needing to be legally forced into a life of indentured servanthood. The stay-at-home parent option is a luxury which, it appears, we simply can't afford.
If that's not good enough, we could also look at taxpayer-funded income supplementation for parents. This is unfair to single people who opt out of pregnancy, but it is not life-destroyingly unfair, and inasmuch as having a healthy population is a shared benefit, the costs should also be shared.
I can't guarantee that these proposals will work. I don't have data on their effectiveness. But I can guarantee that unfair laws all wind up being family-hostile in some way and drive birth rates down, and any approach that preserves such laws is doomed to fail. If we don't want to go back to historical (oppressive-ridden) norms, we are simply going to have to try something new, because what we are doing now is clearly not working.
Oh, last option: import people from countries that still have too many, and have sponsoring businesses pay for their education and upbringing. Racists hate this and of course businesses hate this because they do not want to pay the cost of training their future employees, but it is still a fair option given that the ones who pay are ultimately the ones who profit from the investment in the long term.
So, there are some thoughts.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. I find upper middle class women in my community are avoiding raising a large family because of cost for a good university is staggering and because even with a 20 week paternity leave there are still many years where full time work is challenging with one or two children, and the thought of having a third or fourth child is completely out of the realm of possibility to them. Imagine paying for a good preschool four times over. Even rich people take pause at that idea.
For working class people it
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds sensible, to make procreation of people who are obviously unable and unfit to care for offspring unable to get some.
I'd even expect to find a lot of support for this from the ones affected by it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you assume I play that stupid game? I'm no liberal, I just hate idiots. That isn't necessarily the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I vote Nazi, but not for that sociopath Hitler.
Re: (Score:2)
"Would of" typifies tech worker lack of education.
Re: (Score:2)
abomination:a thing that causes disgust or hatred.
God made the stem cells, scientists just manipulated them to make something different. It doesn't seem to be much different from humans creating the labradoodle, a creature that never existed before human intervention. You could also include cows, chickens, corn, all GMO food, and any other plant or creature that doesn't naturally exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Plus just about every first year computer science student.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Conway's game of Life (not the board game) is a simple "life" simulation. It's a cellular automata that plays out on a grid based on very simple rules. Each grid square can either be occupied by a cell or unoccupied. Cells survive if they have sufficient support from neighbors, but die if they are overcrowded. So, if there are less than two neighbors to a cell, it dies on the next round and, if there are two or three it lives on the next round and if there are more than three neighbors it dies on the next r
Re: (Score:2)
Good then we have nothing to worry about. God set a speed limit on travel surely he would make a law of physics that prevents this stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:An Abomination (Score:4, Interesting)
Only life creates god.
Re: (Score:2)
What? No fucking way.
I have better things to do, if you want to propagate, take care of your shit yourself.