Re: [sudo-discuss] defying biology

YOs- It would be more impressive if they had defied physics, for example by exceeding c. Or if they had cross-bred the outcome of the first experiment, with a polar bear, and announced the outcome with a press release titled "Lions and Tigers and Bears, oh my!" Realistically though, there is no "defying" biology any more than "defying" chemistry, physics, or maths. What there is, is humans experimenting with biology and creating new organisms that haven't existed before. That, in and of itself, is interesting as science and omnious* as technology. Though, we should encourage the media to not use language that suggests that scientific accomplishments are in some way supernatural (by which I mean, "above or outside of nature or empirical methods"). By definition the only thing that can exist "above" nature would be a deity that can create an entire universe at will. And any such entity is also outside the scope of empirical methods to verify or falsify, which is why science is necessarily agnostic. * Omnious: accidental neologism. I had meant to type "ominous, for both good and bad," in the sense that our newly gained powers in experimental biology hold out the hope for new cures for diseases and new weaponized germs alike. All the way up the phylogenetic scale, to the prospect of neo-eugenics (who wouldn't want to tweak their own sperm cells or egg cells in order to have a kid who is more capable in whatever way?). But a typo rendered "ominous" as "omnious," which turns out to be interesting: the root "omni" means "all," thus, something that is "omnious" has all-encompassing possibilities. Experimental biology is in that sense an "omnious" technology. (And a quick online search turns up nothing, so apparently I'm the first to coin that term, heh;-) -G. =-=-=-= On 13-05-10-Fri 7:00 PM, Leonid Kozhukh wrote: