ESC and Glow-in-the-dark

Interesting article from Science Daily:

"scientists at the Murdoch Children's Research Institute"

How's that for irony.

"Not only will the ErythRED cell line lead to more efficient creation of red blood cells from human embryonic stem cells, but these cells are a crucial tool for monitoring the behaviour of the cells when transplanted into animal models"

I know we have a problem with getting people to give blood... what is the rationalists explanation that anyway? Shouldn't rational people give blood?

ASC and Pre-term Lungs

Encouraging new from Science Daily, on the use of adult stem cells to treat premature birth in rats.

Downs Again

Interesting article on Science Daily:

"More importantly, the improved detection rate was accompanied by a decrease in the screening tests false positive rates"

I mumbled earlier about the high rate of abortion for those diagnosed with Downs syndrome. This article reveals the dark side of this practice.

A "false positive" refers to a test which says "true" when the reality is "false". In this case, the baby is said to have Downs syndrome, when he in fact, does not.

The Dawkins

"If this 'Dawkins' exists, I demand he show himself to me!" - Way of the Master Radio

Among the new atheists, one of the most amusing is Professor Richard Dawkins. He is constantly seeking media attention, and finding it.

The latest is at CNN.

Some choice selections:

"It's an undeniable fact that to own up to being an atheist is tantamount to introducing yourself as Mr. Hitler or Miss Beelzebub"

This is probably a reference to the public perception that atheists are "evil" (although, what does "evil" even mean to someone who denies there is the ultimate good).

The public perception is wrong.

An atheist is not really any more likely to be evil than anybody else.

However, an atheist has no good reason to justify his behavior. To be good or evil is the same, in his worldview.

Also:

"Since we are talking about practical ways, the obvious example is stem cell research."

Yea, don't even go there Professor. You're a biologist, you should know better (I can excuse your terrible theology).

"But there is a more pernicious and pervasive influence, which is an active shutting down of the critical faculties."

Hmm, Romans 1:28?

Finally:

"Religion teaches us to be satisfied with non-explanations, and this is viciously corrosive of science and of the life of the mind generally."

That's really the best one. I enjoy science because I want to know how God is revealing Himself in nature. Also, I want to be able to explain all my positions based on careful study of God's Word.

But the evolutionist? He "explains" everything with "evolution did it".

• Why do we have no hair on our bodies? - natural selection
• Why do we have hair on our heads? - natural selection
• Why are their more right handed people than left? - natural selection
• Why are men more likely to be polygamous than women? - natural selection
• Oops, our latest study shows they are pretty much the same? - natural selection
  

What traits does natural selection select for? Whatever makes an organism less likely to be selected.

ASC Supply

Recently we saw a potential huge supply of (adult) stem cells from fat.

Now, two more on the same day:

1. Amniotic fluid
2. Potential benefits of stem cell therapy without stem cells

Mary and Byzantine

Insightful article from Ignatius Insight.

I must apologize, because I like to always say something good on a topic, before offering criticism (for example "On Pietism"/"Against Pietism"). That post will have to wait...

Some tidbits:

"The Mariological experience and piety of the Byzantine Churches—Catholic and Orthodox—seem to be embodied almost entirely in their worship. But we find no prominent theological reflection on the subject"

"In the East, knowledge of God is not the result of logical arguments presented by theology."

This second quote really captures a lot.

ESC and Skin

From Science Daily:

"For more than two decades, physicians have used cell culture techniques in order to obtain a sufficiently large area of skin to reconstruct the destroyed epidermis from a small sample harvested from the patients themselves."

So, we have existing solutions that work without ESC...

"Although this type of graft has been used with success, one of its limits is the time required (three weeks) to produce a sufficient amount of epidermis to cover the affected areas"

But we are impatient...

"the use of such grafts in animals with a weakened immune system to overcome potential graft rejection. Twelve weeks after transplantation, the mice presented localized areas of completely normal and functional adult human epidermis containing all the skin cell types"

Graft rejection? Oh yea, these are foreign cells, so the receiver will need to take immuno-suppressive drugs their whole life, or until they can receive a traditional graft.