Quote of the day
posted at 10:25 pm on May 18, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
“We may need more time for practical applications. But I love the idea.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Bacteria to the Future ?
William Amos on May 18, 2007 at 10:26 PM
Just what we need. A bunch of bacteria immune to antibiotics and know relativity. This has the makings of a sci-fi movie.
lorien1973 on May 18, 2007 at 10:30 PM
I’m going to wait for Bacteria 2.0 to be released.
fogw on May 18, 2007 at 10:58 PM
Organic hard drive.
I wonder how that works with cheese?
Kini on May 18, 2007 at 11:27 PM
Let them store a slice of America as it was before its fall.
abinitioadinfinitum on May 18, 2007 at 11:28 PM
So that’s nothing. I can store cheetohs between my couch cushions for years.
Mojave Mark on May 18, 2007 at 11:32 PM
I lose my keys, my cell phone, my drivers license on occasion, how the hell am I supposed to keep track of a bacterium? And when I go to back up my data, what’s there going to be, a germ-port on my mac? Other than that, I think it’s a brilliant idea. I am going to look into designing a bling germ case. Maybe Coach or Donna Karan?
Do you ever sleep? {Allahpundit} Great day on Hot Air today. You are a blogosphere Super Hero.
RushBaby on May 18, 2007 at 11:54 PM
Heh.
Actually this is a pretty cool idea, it’ll be interesting to see where it goes.
Bad Candy on May 19, 2007 at 12:02 AM
Like what Darwinism does with Creation?
infidel4life on May 19, 2007 at 12:04 AM
Great…now I’m going to need anti-bacteria software too!
JetBoy on May 19, 2007 at 12:07 AM
Just for laughs, we could pack bacterial DNA with textbooks on introductory biochemistry.
Kralizec on May 19, 2007 at 12:39 AM
Who’s to say that this genetic tinkering couldn’t result in a deadly form of bacteria or other organism to which we would have no immunity, vaccine or cure?
I’m all for the advancement of science, but I hope these guys who are doing all of this genetic engineering are taking multiple redundant safety precautions. Even then, there is always the freakish, against-all-odds accident to worry about, not to mention Murphy’s Law.
hillbillyjim on May 19, 2007 at 1:00 AM
Because we tinkered with this bacteria, millions of years from now it will evolve into a sentient species where half will contend that they were created by “random molecules forming” and that there is no creator. The other half will simply be wrong.
mojowire on May 19, 2007 at 1:43 AM
mojowire-
Or are we the result of one, already?
(Cue: Theremin music.)
profitsbeard on May 19, 2007 at 2:12 AM
First of all, you couldn’t be more wrong about “half”… The vast majority of the public doesn’t buy evolution.
What’s funny is scientists recognizing code, which would imply design to an objective mind. Interesting too that they would turn to something in nature to store information because it’s so advanced and designed to carry information, because modern technology still can’t match it, as it can’t in many areas. Scientists are constantly trying to mimic what is seen in nature, and constantly failing… yet with all of their knowledge and capabilities, they think the natural world that they strive to duplicate, just happened by chance.
RightWinged on May 19, 2007 at 3:27 AM
There was an episode of Star Trek were some advanced race had stored a program in the DNA of the major species. When they pieced it together it pretty much said “Everybody be nice.” I bet the scientists driving this was a Star Trek geek.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Faith1 on May 19, 2007 at 6:34 AM
I guess the Democrat Underground archives can now be stored on a fungus.
pjcomix on May 19, 2007 at 9:04 AM
Come now, it’s a joke.
I would preface things like that with a “joke” tag, but since I rarely take anything too seriously (doc’s orders) I will preface comments with “seriously though…” when I am not being a clown.
mojowire on May 19, 2007 at 9:19 AM
That’s cool, I just get frustrated when people try to paint creationists as some “fringe” group. People may not define themselves by that word, but poll after poll consistently shows that the vast majority of the public’s beliefs are the same as creationists.
RightWinged on May 19, 2007 at 12:17 PM
RightWinged got there first, but I’m going to go there also.
The scientists researching this concept have long since passed a point where they are concerned about genetic structures randomly shifting or altering, or else they wouldn’t be saying that the information contained therein would be reliable for extremely long periods of time.
If there were ANY validity to the concept that DNA coding structures just up and change any old time they want to, then this wouldn’t even be on the drawing board. Ergo, genetic evolution isn’t valid.
A dog is a dog, and never becomes a cat. A rat is a rat, and never becomes a mouse. A whale is a whale, and never came from a cow. The closest anyone can come to proving evolution is that liberals sometimes truly progress, and become conservatives.
Freelancer on May 19, 2007 at 1:35 PM
Freelancer, I’d add that the one thing that consistently evolves is the theory…. to fit a constant flow of contradicting evidence.
RightWinged on May 19, 2007 at 1:41 PM
Those people that wrote stuff in stone thousands of years ago really wasted their time…
elgeneralisimo on May 19, 2007 at 1:49 PM
with “moderates” as the “transitional forms”? heh.
IrishEyes on May 19, 2007 at 2:40 PM
Maybe, but I’d put that in the class of adaptation, along with the majority of what passes for evidence of evolution among the ignorant or malignant.
Freelancer on May 19, 2007 at 3:35 PM
Heh, that’s me!
4shoes on May 19, 2007 at 5:59 PM
As per article…
The odds of the sequencing remaining unchanged enough over an extended period of time is a very small number approaching zero, hence the need for duplication in various places(you need to check each against the other for changes and that still might not give you the original imprinting because of the pliability of genetic material). Whenever mitosis occurs there are “mistakes” in the recombination. When ever the errors are too great the cell undergoes apoptosis as a general rule. Thus changes tend to be subtle and manifest themselves over an extended period. But change they do.
The article didn’t say but using an endospore could overcome that limitation though…
elgeneralisimo on May 19, 2007 at 7:38 PM
Comment pages: