Comments:US scientist creates 'artificial life'
This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. Please remain on topic and avoid offensive or inflammatory comments where possible. Try thought-provoking, insightful, or controversial. Civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.
Use the "Start a new discussion" button just below to start a new discussion. If the button isn't there, wait a few seconds and click this link: Refresh.
Contents
| Thread title | Replies | Last modified |
|---|---|---|
| Comments from feedback form - "more detail plzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz" | 0 | 06:39, 16 May 2020 |
| Comments from feedback form - "Nice, concise, executive summa..." | 0 | 13:02, 29 June 2010 |
| Comments from feedback form - "'solving global warming by usi..." | 4 | 07:01, 22 June 2010 |
| Comments from feedback form - "this news was fantastic but i ..." | 0 | 13:41, 7 June 2010 |
| Comments from feedback form - "ok" | 0 | 04:16, 29 May 2010 |
| David Baltimore | 0 | 02:32, 22 May 2010 |
more detail plzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
'solving global warming by using bacteria which uptake CO2' is not even close to being a possible option, not to mention the fact that global warming has not yet been proven to be caused by co2 levels...
Actually it has, you should probably stop watching Fox ;)
I would say 77 is partly right, the debate is two ways. I would say that all the gunk we shoot into the atmosphere is bad, CO2 is one of the problems.
By the way this article is not about artificial life. Rather: US Scientist highlights the uses of modifying God's creations to benefit us.
sounds cool