Teabagger Whacktard Christine O’Donnell Warns Against Mice With Human Brains!

[johnny karate]

Mee.. ow!

 

[mhaze]

... I understand that political candidates may not understand all aspects of a scientific issue. On the other hand, O'Donnell has gone on record as saying there is at least as much if not more evidence for creationism than evolution. Therefore she really doesn't understand science well enough to talk about it in public.

In any case, leaving aside the terminology, the bigger problem is her claiming that it already happened. I expect people who are going to appear on television to discuss controversial scientific issue to know the current state of affairs. This was not "gotcha" journalism from O'Reilly. O'Donnell was the one who brought up the topic of mice with human brains.

No, it was not "gotcha" journalism, yes O'Donnell brought this subjecct up .... but the other guy there was a fully qualified stem cell researcher familiar with the issue of implanting human stem cells into animals.

It was noted in the show immediately after she made that comment, that it was an exaggeration. She may have thought that the experiment with 100% human brain cells had occurred, or she may have not understood that the existing experiment had used 1% human material.

The problem I've got with this matter is tangential, but related.

A. Soros funded TPM cranks up the smears after O'Donnell is elected, this within 24 hours hits the JREF website as a topic. Expected. BUT...this is not "gothca" journalism either, especially since the mistake was caught immediately during the televised O'Reilly show.

Now we've got people here talking about it seeming knowledgeable but whom to my way of thinking are no more knowledgeable on the subject than O'Donnell.

I had to point out that such research had been done, and exactly that research had been proposed and rejected for ethical reasons. And there didn't seem to be anyone who knew about the brain cell culture flying the simulated fighter jet.

So my personal view is that I'd give O'Donnell about the same leeway in errors and outright blunders and ignorances as, well, I give people on this forum.

 

[NotJesus]

No, it was not "gotcha" journalism, yes O'Donnell brought this subjecct up .... but the other guy there was a fully qualified stem cell researcher familiar with the issue of implanting human stem cells into animals.

It was noted in the show immediately after she made that comment, that it was an exaggeration. She may have thought that the experiment with 100% human brain cells had occurred, or she may have not understood that the existing experiment had used 1% human material.

Or she may have thought there were "mice with fully functioning human brains." You know -- LIKE SHE SAID.

That's the funny part. You missed the funny part.

The problem I've got with this matter is tangential, but related.

A. Soros funded TPM cranks up the smears after O'Donnell is elected, this within 24 hours hits the JREF website as a topic. Expected. BUT...this is not "gothca" journalism either, especially since the mistake was caught immediately during the televised O'Reilly show.

Calling it a smear over and over won't make it one, you know.

Now we've got people here talking about it seeming knowledgeable but whom to my way of thinking are no more knowledgeable on the subject than O'Donnell.

I'm not very knowledgeable about such research, and never claimed to be, but I damn well knew that mice with human brains was nonsense. Didn't have to look it up or anything. If, to your way of thinking, this makes O'Donnell and me equally knowledgeable, well, you have a funny way of thinking.

I had to point out that such research had been done, and exactly that research had been proposed and rejected for ethical reasons.

And misrepresent what had been proposed. See my previous post.

And there didn't seem to be anyone who knew about the brain cell culture flying the simulated fighter jet..

Irrelevant.

So my personal view is that I'd give O'Donnell about the same leeway in errors and outright blunders and ignorances as, well, I give people on this forum.

Well, you started by calling us idiots so I guess that makes her one too.

 

[mhaze]

Or she may have thought there were "mice with fully functioning human brains." ...

I'm not very knowledgeable about such research, and never claimed to be, but I damn well knew that mice with human brains was nonsense. Didn't have to look it up or anything. If, to your way of thinking, this makes O'Donnell and me equally knowledgeable, well, you have a funny way of thinking......you started by calling us idiots so I guess that makes her one too.

First of all the phrase "useful idiots" is quite different than "idiot". If you are not aware of the difference I'll be happy to explain it.

Secondly regarding the part above bolded. As you've seen from my prior explanatory posts, given the current state of the science, no it isn't nonsense at all. That's why I DID LOOK IT UP, and DID PROVIDE THE LINKS.

From there, quite obviously, we can go on to look at exactly what constitutes a human brain.? 100% human brain cells? More than 50% of cells being human? Size and weight? Number and complexity of folds and creases? The brain being located "in a human?" That last one is what I'd use.

But these reasonable questions that clarify the subject were not asked. Nope, instead the quote was assumed to be total nonsense. And that it wasn't. In fact the scientific researcher on the show did not say that. He said:

"That's an exaggeration".

But only of what has been done. Not of what we can, and likely will do.

 

[Ladewig]

A. Soros funded TPM cranks up the smears after O'Donnell is elected, this within 24 hours hits the JREF website as a topic.

Wow that's virtually exactly as efficient as the Karl Rove smears that occurred during the Bush tenure.

 

[NotJesus]

First of all the phrase "useful idiots" is quite different than "idiot". If you are not aware of the difference I'll be happy to explain it.

So, people who mock O'Donnell's idiocy are the dupes of some enemy of the state? Who would that be? George Soros?

Secondly regarding the part above bolded. As you've seen from my prior explanatory posts, given the current state of the science, no it isn't nonsense at all. That's why I DID LOOK IT UP, and DID PROVIDE THE LINKS.

Yes, it is nonsense. Human brain cells in a mouse does not equal "mice with fully functioning human brains," no matter how you slice it. And you still appear not to understand what was in the links you provided.

From there, quite obviously, we can go on to look at exactly what constitutes a human brain.? 100% human brain cells? More than 50% of cells being human? Size and weight? Number and complexity of folds and creases? The brain being located "in a human?" That last one is what I'd use.

And none of those situations exists or has ever existed in any mouse, anywhere.

But these reasonable questions that clarify the subject were not asked.

There's nothing to clarify. What she said was unambiguous. Unambiguously wrong.

Nope, instead the quote was assumed to be total nonsense. And that it wasn't.

I'm afraid it was.

In fact the scientific researcher on the show did not say that. He said:

"That's an exaggeration".

He was showing restraint. Or maybe he was stunned by the depth of her ignorance. But his response is irrelevant anyway. If he'd agreed with O'Donnell, that wouldn't have made her any less wrong.

But only of what has been done. Not of what we can, and likely will do.

We're likely going to create mice with human brains? I very much doubt it.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Yeah, someone who in another thread questioned the intelligence of someone who graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School.

The irony is staggering.

Game, set, match!

 

[LukeB]

Mice with human brains is just crazy talk. The real danger is in humans with mice for brains.

OH GOD WE'RE TOO LATE

 

[Loss Leader]

My personal theory is that, given enough time, Christine O'Donnell will say everything.

 

[Unabogie]

So, TPM, as far as I know, is a commercial website. Any evidence at all that it's Soros funded? Sounds like bs.

 

[GreNME]

Just curious, but did the LGF folks point and laugh at this when President of the Untied States George W. Bush made this same type of statement in a State of the Union address?

I have no idea.

I'm betting not. LGF may have gotten more critical of the massive shift to the right due to the TeaBaggery in the GOP, but as mhaze is displaying with his arguments the whacko idea that science is making human/animal hybrids has already been floating in the conservative circles.

 

[Ladewig]

But these reasonable questions that clarify the subject were not asked. Nope, instead the quote was assumed to be total nonsense.

It wasn't assumed to be nonsense. It is objective nonsense. There is no way to slice this cake that does not end up producing nonsense. She said that scientists already are are making mice with fully functioning human brains. That is nonsense.

And that it wasn't. In fact the scientific researcher on the show did not say that. He said:

"That's an exaggeration".

You keep quoting that as if it is evidence of something that helps your case. It is not. The only thing that is evidence of is that one scientist on O'Reilly's show was too polite to say, "that's nonsense" to her face. His manners does not make her answer partially right. Her answer was completely and unequivocally wrong. It was and is laughably wrong.

 

[mhaze]

It wasn't assumed to be nonsense. It is objective nonsense. There is no way to slice this cake that does not end up producing nonsense. She said that scientists already are are making mice with fully functioning human brains. That is nonsense.....

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nonsense

1. words or language having little or no sense or meaning.

2. conduct, action, etc., that is senseless, foolish, or absurd

No, simply being wrong about something does not make the statement nonsense. #1 does not apply, so apply #2.

a. Is it senseless? Nope.
b. Is it foolish? Nope, scientists have an ability to do this.
c. Is it absurd? Nope, scientists ... some of them ... would like to do this.

For the record I'm for stem cell research and animal-human hybrid experiments of this sort within a broad set of parameters.

Not denying that her comment sounds pretty funny and that on first glance it sounds like nonsense. But the current level of science indicates that it's not.

Now Obama's interview in which he stated that he thought when he was giving speeches, he was directly channeling God.

That's some nonsense for you.

 

[johnny karate]

Ha ha... mhaze doesn't think saying that scientists are cross-breeding mice and humans and creating mice with fully-functional human brains is foolish and absurd.

Priceless.

 

[BenBurch]

She really needs to get laid.

There is not a condom thick enough.

 

[BenBurch]

My personal theory is that, given enough time, Christine O'Donnell will say everything.

Monkeys and typewriters.

 

[Ladewig]

Ha ha... mhaze doesn't think saying that scientists are cross-breeding mice and humans and creating mice with fully-functional human brains is foolish and absurd.

Priceless.

Indeed.

Mhaze, sometimes people on the right say whackadoodle things; sometimes people on the left say whackadoodle things. Trying to convince other people that nobody in one's own party says whackadoodle things really doesn't help one's credibility.

 

[NotJesus]

b. Is it foolish? Nope, scientists have an ability to do this.

They do not.

c. Is it absurd? Nope, scientists ... some of them ... would like to do this.

They would not.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nonsense

1. words or language having little or no sense or meaning.

2. conduct, action, etc., that is senseless, foolish, or absurd

No, simply being wrong about something does not make the statement nonsense. #1 does not apply, so apply #2.

a. Is it senseless? Nope.
b. Is it foolish? Nope, scientists have an ability to do this.
c. Is it absurd? Nope, scientists ... some of them ... would like to do this.

For the record I'm for stem cell research and animal-human hybrid experiments of this sort within a broad set of parameters.

Not denying that her comment sounds pretty funny and that on first glance it sounds like nonsense. But the current level of science indicates that it's not.

Now Obama's interview in which he stated that he thought when he was giving speeches, he was directly channeling God.

That's some nonsense for you.

Isn't this a good example definition of cognitive dissonance?

 

[mhaze]

They do not.

They would not.

So what part of the question about growing human brain cells in immunodeficient mice is it that you don't understand or question?