7/7/2004: Blue roses

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Albamoss

But now, in the English courses of the future, the poor children, inundated with blue roses, won't know what the hell Laura and Jim are talking about, just as we're not quite sure what in blazes pleurosis is.

Welcome to the Cellar, Albamoss.
Poems will start;
Roses are blue,
Violets are too,

[Albamoss]

Fine, xoxoxoBruce, just hide behind a handle impossible to implement into a poem. what the hell kind of meter is /u/u/u/ anyway? It's just not fair.

[Cyber Wolf]

That's a pretty uncommon color for roses, I'd figure, no matter how they were grown. Normally all you see is white, pink and red, unless you frequent greenhouses that may have more. I saw some tangerine-y colored ones once at a greenhouse.

I'm with hermex though... show me some ultramarine blue roses and I'll want to know where I can get some. Love me some black roses too.

[lumberjim]

I think the point is the success of the genetic alteration. the color is nice to demonstrate it, but more important is the WAY they did it. that kind of freaks me out a little. i know theY genetically modify food, and i dont trust that.

[LabRat]

Originally Posted by lumberjim

i know the genetically modify food, and i dont trust that.

why?

[Beestie]

Originally Posted by LabRat

why?

Why not? (not being sarcastic - just asking the inverse question).

When someone alters the DNA of something, there could be unintended consequences. Problem is, layfolk like me and LJ don't have a high confidence level that a) they verified that the plant is an exact duplicate but for the intended change which has been verified as good or b) all unexpected changes aside from those intended have been "cleared."

For example: The much heralded zero fat "fat" Olestra. P&G spent decades perfecting it and assured everyone that it was perfectly fine. Problem is, it was found (by a watchdog) to be vitamin soluble (if that's the correct term). Olestra would absorb any vitamin it came into contact with in the digestive system and, as we all know, would exit the system taking all the nutrients right along with it. After Olestra was released into the marketplace, Proctor and Gamble was confronted with this info (I guess 20 years of research either didn't reveal this dificiency or P&G chose to ignore it - either way it was bad). Their simple solution was to pack it full of vitamins (saturate it) such that it couldn't absorb any more. But they had to be intimidated into doing that. And I'm supposed to trust these people?

Frankenfood is scary. You did see Attack of the Killer Tomatoes did you not?

[LabRat]

Originally Posted by Beestie

When someone alters the DNA of something, there could be unintended consequences.

not could be, usually are! thats why things for human consumption/use are SUPPOSED to be tested fully. the problem is, testing takes money and time, two things CEOs aren't willing to spend a whole lot of. so a lot of things that pass the 'good enough' tests really aren't FULLY tested.

Originally Posted by Beestie

Problem is, layfolk like me and LJ don't have a high confidence level that a) they verified that the plant is an exact duplicate but for the intended change which has been verified as good or b) all unexpected changes aside from those intended have been "cleared."

it's not just layfolk, me too!!! for the very same reasons. i am very wary of some bioengeneered products, because we aren't allowed to test them in the way they should be, IN PEOPLE!! it's a catch22. (if i'm using that right) we use animals to test products/drugs/etc, as MODELS, with the assumption that the human body will react in the same way. however there are some very subtle differences in species that can result in very different outcomes when introduced to specific things. clinical trials are designed to do this for drugs, test them in people after they have been tested in animals. but they are very limited due to the fact that there are so many 'variations' of humans and clinical trials only have a few subjects which represent only a fraction of the possible types of metabolisms out there. but i'm getting off track

Originally Posted by Beestie

You did see Attack of the Killer Tomatoes did you not?

no

[LabRat]

[quote=Undertoad I have no clue what that exactly entails [/QUOTE]


jerking hand in the air and practically falling out of chair: OOH OOH, I know this one!!

i do this on a regular basis, the recombinant DNA stuff...except in animal cells not plants.

the generic version is taking a gene of interest from one organism, and putting it in the cells of another. in this example they took the dna that codes for making the blue pigment (the gene) out of flower A and put it in flower B's cells, so that flower B now makes it like it would have it's own pigment.

it's sort of like word processing where you just cut a sentance out of one book and paste it in another, but on a different scale. the language is the same, so the reader (the cells protein making machinery) just goes on translating the new stuff with the old (as if you were reading a paragraph with the new sentance inserted). because dna is dna is dna, the second organism doesn't 'know' that this new gene isn't one of it's own and just goes about tranlating it like all the rest if it's own genes. like a book though, you have to have the new word (or gene) be in context with the rest of the story or it won't make any sense (or, the new protein won't be made or expressed properly in the new organism). this is what takes so long, trying to get the new word (gene) to make sense (be properly translated into a good protein) with the rest of the story (the rest of the proteins in the organism).

there will be a quiz later, i hope you took notes

[Beestie]

because dna is dna is dna, the second organism doesn't 'know' that this new gene isn't one of it's own and just goes about tranlating it like all the rest if it's own genes.

Isn't that how aids works? I heard it "writes itself" into the DNA and all subsequent RNA has the aids definition built in. I never knew what that meant/how that worked until your explanation (assuming I read it right).

[Guess]

i hate how all these pictures of new technology always show a smiling japanese girl! its so annoying!

[perth]

Originally Posted by Guess

i hate how all these pictures of new technology always show a smiling japanese girl! its so annoying!

Ssssh! You'll ruin it for the rest of us!

[Beestie]

Originally Posted by Guess

i hate how all these pictures of new technology always show a smiling japanese girl! its so annoying!

So I'm browsing Mike's List and what do I find?...

Ho, Hum. Another 3-Megapixel Camera Phone


Samsung launched this 3-megapixel camera phone, called the SPH-2300, Sunday [July 11, 2004]. Unlike other camera phones, this one looks as much like a camera as does like a phone. (Girl with acne not included.) Casio shipped its 3-megapixel camera phone last month.

[glatt]

OK. So how long does it take to e-mail a 3 megapixel image over the cell phone? Like a day or something? Or are they improving the infrastructure too?

Or am I just not getting it? Are you supposed to take it home and put the card in your card reader?

[LabRat]

http://www.rpi.edu/dept/chem-eng/Bio...rdna/rdna.html

http://www.accessexcellence.org/AB/I...uage_rDNA.html

a couple of sites that don't use too much jargon to explain this, i'll try to find more better ones with prettier pictures

this is my passion BTW

[Undertoad]

If you've had McDonald's fries, you've et GE food, engineered to produce potatoes that are longer than the usual in order to fit into their fry holders and be easily eaten.

just a little mini-fact