Good teaching tool for early teaching in biology

[Hollie]

Ask God to help you understand it all.

I did. He said to see you for the list.

 

[Hollie]

Well, God did create those strands.

Is there a metaphor in any of the bibles you can direct me to?

 

[Grumblenuts]

If there are gods, they obviously created this place for tardigrades far more than for us.
Kleiner Wasserbär.

 

[Woodznutz]

I did. He said to see you for the list.

Quote a scripture and I'll see what I can do.

 

[Woodznutz]

If there are gods, they obviously created this place for tardigrades far more than for us.
Kleiner Wasserbär.

By numbers and weight the creepy crawlies do have the advantage.

There's room for all of God's creatures.

Complex little beggars, them tardigrades.

 

[Grumblenuts]

There's room for all of God's creatures.

Vastly more available for them to thrive in than for us.

Complex little beggars, them tardigrades.

Far simpler / less beggarly than us. We're the ones who missed the boat in terms of longevity. "Waterbears are immortal." That pretty much makes them gods, no? Go ahead and try threatening them with anything your gods have to chuck at them.

for Kleiner Wasserbär!

 

[Hollie]

Quote a scripture and I'll see what I can do.

Four corners.

 

[Woodznutz]

Vastly more available for them to thrive in than for us.

Far simpler / less beggarly than us. We're the ones who missed the boat in terms of longevity. "Waterbears are immortal." That pretty much makes them gods, no? Go ahead and try threatening them with anything your gods have to chuck at them.

for Kleiner Wasserbär!

We need them, in God's grand ecological scheme, elst they wouldn't exist.

 

[Woodznutz]

Four corners.

Sure.
The Hebrew term for "the corners of a square object" is different from the term used to describe the "four corners", or wings, extremities, (by implication directions) of the earth. The use of the phrase "four corners of the earth" is still found in contemporary literature and has the same meaning. Hope this helps.

 

[Hollie]

Sure.
The Hebrew term for "the corners of a square object" is different from the term used to describe the "four corners", or wings, extremities, (by implication directions) of the earth. The use of the phrase "four corners of the earth" is still found in contemporary literature and has the same meaning. Hope this helps.

Four corners is the term used. ''by implication'' is your term. Extremities does not indicate compass direction as you stated earlier.

Why the need to rewrite what is clearly written? Why didn't the gods insist on the right to edit what was in the bible,?

 

[Woodznutz]

Four corners is the term used. ''by implication'' is your term. Extremities does not indicate compass direction as you stated earlier.

Why the need to rewrite what is clearly written? Why didn't the gods insist on the right to edit what was in the bible,?

You're beating dead horse. Let it go.

 

[Hollie]

You're beating dead horse. Let it go.

This becomes an issue for the religionists when they can't explain such glaring contradictions.

 

[Grumblenuts]

We need them, in God's grand ecological scheme, elst they wouldn't exist.

Yep, logic clearly dictates that the gods exist to conveniently serve just some of us. But our incredible arrogance is far from the worst part. As Agent Smith noted, "It's the smell."

 

[Grumblenuts]

You're beating dead horse. Let it go.

Why? A dead horse is just gonna sit there regardless.

 

[Woodznutz]

Why? A dead horse is just gonna sit there regardless.

The rider will move on.

 

[Woodznutz]

Yep, logic clearly dictates that the gods exist to conveniently serve just some of us. But our incredible arrogance is far from the worst part. As Agent Smith noted, "It's the smell."

A good point.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Time isn't the problem. The first living organism must have had all the elements/building blocks needed to recombine into today's critters. If it did it had to have been spontaneously created and incredibly complex.

Why does the first one need everything the last ones have? Why must it be spontaneous? What's your hurry? You just finished saying time wasn't an issue! Make up your mind, doggonit!

{Wait, intermission.. Say a dog were laying on top of a beaten dead horse with a row of cute little kittens on top, plus a maraschino cherry and some whipped cream.. "Hey, yo, stop beating that horse, catsonit!"}

Okay, also "incredibly complex" compared to what exactly? A dead horse? Primordial soup and no life result given millions of warm years to stew in?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Spontaneous:

adjective

1. performed or occurring as a result of a sudden inner impulse or inclination and without premeditation or external stimulus.

 

[Woodznutz]

Why does the first one need everything the last ones have? Why must it be spontaneous? What's your hurry? You just finished saying time wasn't an issue! Make up your mind, doggonit!

{Wait, intermission.. Say a dog were laying on top of a beaten dead horse with a row of cute little kittens on top, plus a maraschino cherry and some whipped cream.. "Hey, yo, stop beating that horse, catsonit!"}

Okay, also "incredibly complex" compared to what exactly? A dead horse? Primordial soup and no life result given millions of warm years to stew in?

The only thing that could have been added to that first life form was..."natural selection". And all it had to work with was what the microbe had within it.

The same with the junkyard/747 analogy. All the needed materials had to be there at the time of the explosion.

 

[Grumblenuts]

The only thing that could have been added to that first life form was..."natural selection". And all it had to work with was what the microbe had within it.

The same with the junkyard/747 analogy. All the needed materials had to be there at the time of the explosion.

Wrong.

The idea was daring, radical—dangerous even. Is it possible to build a living organism from scratch that’s smaller, simpler, more bare bones than anything now alive? Can we outsimplify nature itself and maybe get a peek at the raw machinery—nature’s secret formula—for the essence of life?

We—you and I—are dense with working parts. A human cell has more than 20,000 genes, fruit flies 13,000, yeast cells 6,000. But if we look for the simplest creatures on the planet, we will find a wee bacterium that lives happily in the digestive tracts of cows and goats: Mycoplasma mycoides.

It builds itself from a very modest blueprint—only 525 genes. It’s one of the simplest life-forms we’ve ever seen.

The Big Dare​

So, suggested Craig Venter eight years ago, why not take the next step and try to engineer something even simpler? A new life-form with even fewer parts? Venter is perhaps biology’s most wily, most celebrated entrepreneur (famous for spurring the great race to build the human genome). He assembled an ace team of cell biologists and asked, If we put our minds to it, could we strip life so bare that we’d create a living, replicating creature with, say, only 500 genes? Or 400? Or 300? As Chubby Checker used to sing (while dancing the limbo years ago), “How lowwwww can you go?”

Well -- cutting to the chase:

On March 24, Venter and his team of scientists unveiled a man-made cell stripped down to—sound the trumpets!—473 genes. The simplest creature ever. They call it JCVI-syn3.0 (That’s the J. Craig Venter Institute, third try). It’s not Botticelli beautiful.

Gee, who knew? It ain't such rocket science after all!