Now on ScienceBlogs: Cllimategate and what it means for science


The Latest Comments

(These comments may include comment spam that has slipped past the filters; please use common sense before clicking on links that lead to unknown sites.)

  • comment on: Ever wondered what you could figure out from the Bible? »

    Wait! Did anyone else notice that Atlantis was either destroyed in the flood, so "no evidence" of it would exist . . .
    Aren't all the dinosaur fossils evidence of the flood's massive killing ability?

    Jeebus, these morons can't even keep their crazy straight.

    Posted by: Autumn »

  • comment on: The empirical evidence for man-made global warming »

    So Brent, were you lying when you said you haven't read WG1, or have you really expended that much energy calling AGW and scientists frauds all over the 'net not even having read WG1?

    Posted by: lenny »

  • comment on: Ever wondered what you could figure out from the Bible? »

    Actually, the phrase that comes to mind is "false implies anything."

    Posted by: inverse »

  • comment on: Milnacipran (Savella™) Approved for Fibromyalgia »

    Recently I was going through a particularly bad few weeks with my fibro pain so I was looking online for a support group. Instead I found something about fibro and gluten intolerance. I cut gluten out of my diet and it has only been a week, but but my pain has improved a lot. There were pages of people with stories like mine which convinced me to try it. I shouldn’t have need convincing. My sister is gluten intolerant (she does not have fibro). I have learned online that people with fibro commonly have sleep disorders (which I do) and now apparently gluten intolerance? I hope that it is can be this simple for many of us. Some people had other food allergies to contend with, but even that would be worth it if you had hope for a pain-free future. I hopeful.

    Posted by: Fibromyalgia treatment »

  • comment on: Episode XXXIV: You can say that on the internet »

    This image should be posted on every forum on the internet:

    Posted by: nejishiki »

  • comment on: Episode XXXIV: You can say that on the internet »

    *Fucking Parasite*

    My apologies to obligate parasites.

    Posted by: Kamaka »

  • comment on: Episode XXXIV: You can say that on the internet »

    Egads and Odds bodkins, but that pace is full of folderol! Can I say that? ;-)

    Oh, that reminds me…

    I fold and roll my underwear. Newish habit after many years decades of drawer-stuffing. Makes it easier for me to give hubby directions for fresh, matching clothes when I'm in hospital.

    Oh, I liked the flower garden. So much so, that it distracted me for ages and a whole slew of posts appeared in the meantime!

    Posted by: Tigger_the_Wing »

  • comment on: Episode XXXIV: You can say that on the internet »

    Hmm, my #447 isn't that clear; what I mean when I say 'their justification are almost identical', I mean their blowing things way out of proportion as part of the appeal to emotion - the extrapolation of possible acts from the original words became more and more graphic as they realised it was all they had on their side.

    I hope that makes sense.

    Posted by: WowbaggerOM »

  • comment on: Trading Bibles for Porn »


    That wasn't a jab, son. That was a nudge.

    If I said;

    "You're a fucking moron, a dipshit and a person who thinks he's smarter than most other folks--AND any of my six sisters would kick your ass for most of the burning stoopid that's oozed out of your keyboard on this thread.",

    THAT would be a jab.

    Posted by: democommie »

  • comment on: Episode XXXIV: You can say that on the internet »

    None of your fucking business Mr Baloney.

    Here I am, quitely lurking, and along comes the Quack to soil a perfectly good thread.

    When I was ill, I went looking for a doctor. I could not find anyone who did what I wanted. So I have worked to become the doctor I wanted to find.

    You, Quack, are a fraud. I link to your website, and you have made every attempt to fool people into thinking you are some sort of MD instead of ND type medical person. Nice touch, the stethoscope.

    Is business down lately, that you have time to pretend you have legitimate arguments to present on science sites?

    *Fucking Parasite*

    Go sell your water elsewhere.

    Posted by: Kamaka »

  • comment on: Another Creation “Museum” »

    Well, the lady says the guy was passionate about "the truth and the Bible".
    At least he correctly separated the two.

    Posted by: Autumn »

  • comment on: Ask DrugMonkey: Will you comment for attribution? »

    Tsu Dho Nimh #14 is exactly right. She should just provide a link to his blog.

    The journalist just wants to get the scoop on DM's identity and DM is right she has behaved terribly.

    "Why is the MSM (or anyone) focused so much on identity credentials and less on whether what someone has said makes any sense?"

    And why are they so ready to automatically trust someone with credentials?

    "I guarantee you I am not about to cite his blog for any proposal or review I might write. And no one else around here will either. It's basically cheap edutainment."

    This is ridiculous. Why would you cite a blog anyway in your proposal? Maybe I'm missing something...DM cites his sources, and he's clearly Just a Guy, with some strong opinions and a big ego. It would be a completely different blog if DM used his real name as anonymous is recommending. And his readers would know in a second if he wasn't who he says he is. This conversation is surreal.

    "All the cannabis fans...a vast right wing prohibitionist conspiracy."

    I hope you were not referring to me, as I keep trying to point out that it is NOT a right wing issue. I mouth off about it so much because it's appalling how complacent liberals, democrats & progressives are regarding the prohibition issue. Actually they're just as bad in some ways.

    Posted by: Isabel »

  • comment on: Quoth Mark "not a doctor, not a scientist" Blaxill: "Help, help, Andy Wakefield's being repressed!" »

    Quoth Orac (OK, I'm just partially quothing him): "...the very last shred of Andrew Wakefield's facade of scientific respectability tumbled."

    Tumbled? That's bein' right charitable, that is! I'd say the shred of the facade burned down, fell over and then sank into the swamp!

    (With apologies to Monty Python)

    Posted by: CulturalIconography »

  • comment on: The empirical evidence for man-made global warming »

    Shorter James:

    Warmist are only permitted to smack down arguments I have vetted and deemed to represent mainstream sceptics.

    Please send arguments you intend to smack down to me for vetting, as I will not let you know in advance which arguments are mainstream and which get a free pass.

    Posted by: jakerman »

  • comment on: Another Creation “Museum” »

    Not as offensive as Ham's museum, I guess. It's a sliding scale.

    Even lower on the scale, I think, is the "Drama of Creation" nightly light show at Natural Bridge near Lexington, Virginia.

    I was only there during the day. Didn't see the nightly creation thing. But I saw signs and asked a tour guide about it. He was very upfront that he thought it was embarrasing. Called it superstition, etc. Actually got worked up about it. Poor guy.

    Posted by: Lowell »

  • comment on: I think the Trophy Wife™ wants one of these for a corsage »

    ...Fuckin gorgeous, that was, until I flipped the pointy bracket and lost the last word.

    Rev. BDC, I'm gunnin for your title.

    Ron Sullivan

    Posted by: »

  • comment on: Trading Bibles for Porn »

    And if someone habitually focuses exclusively on all women's appearances at the exclusion of their many, many other qualities, then I don't think it's out of line to call that person a misogynist (even if no conscious hatred of women is present in that person's heart and mind).

    But I've been saying, over and over, until I'm blue in the face....

    "Acknowledging that a woman's beauty is extremely valuable does not occur at the expense of identifying other values she may possess. In other words, saying a woman is beautiful does not mean that there's nothing more to her than beauty. To appreciate a womans beauty is not to denigrate all the other value they possess."

    I've said "Again, limiting your appreciation of a specific attribute a person holds does not reduce their value to that attribute and that attribute only."

    I've said this over and over. I'm an articulate guy, but I honestly can't think of more ways to say it. I don't know how to make it any clearer. Looking at a woman in a magazine because she is beautiful does NOT amount to the repudiation of her other positive qualities, the ignoring of her other values, or the denial of her humanity. It just doesn't!

    Ergo, no misogyny.

    Posted by: KacyRay »

  • comment on: I think the Trophy Wife™ wants one of these for a corsage »

    I've got a row of stapelias on my windowsill, and one of them usually blooms annually. It attracts houseflies, who walk around on the hairy petals buzzing loudly and ewvidently laying eggs

    I think I'll let that typo stand, because I realized they were laying eggs when I noticed the little teeny maggots on the windowsill. After that, I've been taking the plant outside to visit Joe's pots of carnivores; I figure it's a natural relationship that just doesn't happen to happen in nature.

    Like some other arums—skunk cabbages, e.g.—A. titanum also generates heat, which accelerates the scent distribution. Some North American skunk cabbages melt the snow over their flowers.

    And guess what they smell like.

    There've been several of these in bloom in greenhouses around here over the past few years. I think UC Davis had on of the first. They stationed grad students to watch theirs constantly. Nightshift slept in a hammock, wearing a gas mask. Or so they told me.

    If I had a hothouse I'd definitely have one of these. All else aside, they're fuckin .

    Ron Sullivan

    Posted by: »

  • comment on: Episode XXXIV: You can say that on the internet »

    MK must be counting comment numbers instead.
    There might be a simpler explanation for it all, just like in The Watchmen. M&K; are creating a common enemy to unite the two warring factions (reason and unreason). But to do so, they have to make a common enemy out of those who are on their side. Mooney telling Dawkins not to write a book on evolution? Come on, the only way that could possibly be rationalised is if he's sucking up to the anti-science types by creating Dawkins as a common enemy the pro-science and the anti-science types can unite against.

    Posted by: Kel, OM »

  • comment on: The Humane Society of the United States Does NOT Care For (or About) Animals »

    I found that little movie very eye opening. I never realized that the HSUS did SFA during the Katrina Disaster except raise money. I have a friend that lives in Baton Rouge and during the weeks after the storm she would go to the dog "holding' areas and volunteer to walk and exercise the dogs.To this day it still bothers her to think about what happened to the people AND the animals.

    BTW, I just discovered your blog today & I think it's great! You have a new reader!

    Posted by: Karen Friesecke »

  • comment on: Let Me Mansplain That Sports Illustrated Cover For You, Little Lady! »

    Feminism is all about telling other women what they can and cannot do.

    Sweet, I can get used to this.

    Posted by: Elfie »

  • comment on: Quoth Mark "not a doctor, not a scientist" Blaxill: "Help, help, Andy Wakefield's being repressed!" »

    Brian Deer --

    Oh. My. God. He ignored cases of lead poisoning in one-sixth of his test subjects?!?!

    No wonder the antivaxers worship chelation therapy -- one wonders how many of them live in homes with lead paint. (Of course, if there's no actual contamination, chelation does the kid no good and can likely do harm, but what the hey.)

    Posted by: Phoenix Woman »

  • comment on: I think the Trophy Wife™ wants one of these for a corsage »

    Aren't they smelly?

    Posted by: »

  • comment on: Episode XXXIV: You can say that on the internet »

    What happened with the dietzia patient?

    None of your fucking business Mr Baloney.

    Posted by: Rorschach »

  • comment on: Victory on twitter »

    Did Dr. Rachel Dunlop had any help from parynguloid central?

    Posted by: »

SB Basics


Synthetic Biology

Some engineers use cranes and steel to make their designs reality, but synthetic biologists engineer using tools on a different scale: DNA and the other molecular components of living cells. Synthetic biology uses cellular systems and structures to produce artificial models based on natural order. Read these posts from the ScienceBlogs archives for more:

Pharyngula May 30, 2007

“Playing God”

The Loom January 31, 2008

"Frankenstein Was Here": Synthetic Biology as Graffiti

Discovering Biology in a Digital World July 2, 2006

Build your own virus

See Also:

Cribsheet: Synthetic Biology
Seed’s downloadable science guide

© 2006-2009 ScienceBlogs LLC. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of ScienceBlogs LLC. All rights reserved.