Scientists grow stem cells from Nose

[southsider2k5]

Facinating stuff.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7283645/

[JUGGERNAUT]

Facinating stuff.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7283645/

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That supports my general assertion that religion & science go hand in hand. In general they are both devoted to saving life & searching for universal truth. Its why Catholic priests have a history of playing a role in scientifc development.

[FlaSoxxJim]

That supports my general assertion that religion & science go hand in hand.  In general they are both devoted to saving life & searching for universal truth.  Its why Catholic priests have a history of playing a role in scientifc development.

 

You are not alone in that belief. Physicist Charles Townes, whos Nobel prizewinning research in the 1950s led to the development of the laser, has espoused that belief for the last 40 years. He just was awarded the Templeton Prize For Progress Toward Research or Discoveries About Spiritual Realitie His philosophy can basicallybe summarized by his quote:

 

Understanding the order in the universe and understanding the purpose in the universe are not identical, but they are also not very far apart.

 

I personally do not ascribe to the belief that there are fruitful avenues of inquiry to be found at the nexus of science and religion, as romantic and wonderfully human as such a notion might be. At the same time, I have never seen religion and science as mutually exclusive either (even though I am not religious).

 

The problem with the two fields meshing is actually hinted at right in Townes' quote. Theories as to the order of the universe are testable and therefore fall within the realms of science. Theories as to the PURPOSE of the universe are NOT testable by definition, and so they lie outside of science as we define it, and they always will. Science can critically evaluate the 'how?' but religion ultimately needs to fall back on faith to examine the 'why?'

[YASNY]

The problem with the two fields meshing is actually hinted at right in Townes' quote. Theories as to the order of the universe are testable and therefore fall within the realms of science. Theories as to the PURPOSE of the universe are NOT testable by definition, and so they lie outside of science as we define it, and they always will. Science can critically evaluate the 'how?' but religion ultimately needs to fall back on faith to examine the 'why?'

 

The main problem with this p.o.v. is that because "religion ultimately need to fall back on faith" and is "NOT testable", then it should not even be considered. This is a general theme throughout many of your posts.

[Wong & Owens]

The main problem with this p.o.v. is that because "religion ultimately need to fall back on faith" and is "NOT testable", then it should not even be considered.  This is a general theme throughout many of your posts.

 

I think you're misinterpreting, YAS. What I believe Jim's saying is that there can be no true intertwining of religion and science, because the basis for one field is inherently irrelevant in the other.

[FlaSoxxJim]

I think you're misinterpreting, YAS.  What I believe Jim's saying is that there can be no true intertwining of religion and science, because the basis for one field is inherently irrelevant in the other.

 

I wouldn't even go so far as to to say totally irrelevant, in that religion is a big part of the life of many prominent scientists. But otherwise you are correct, I'm just trying to point out the apples and oranges nature of religion and science and the necessity to approach them in very different ways.

 

I've posted this before, but there are some absolutely brilliant scientists - like Townes - that are deeply spiritual. It is genually intriguing that many of them are physicists, who apparently take the equations describing what goes on under the hood of the universe as far as they can and still have questions that remain unanswered. And as I have also always suggested, even thought science does not equal religion and religion does not equal science. They need not be mutually exclusive in the lives of ondividuals.

 

Despite my own lack of spirituality, I really am an avid supporter of spiritual pursuits and religion - excepting of curse the caveat (and a dealbreaker in some cases) that one person practicing their faith should not negatively impact others' ability to equally freely practice their religion... or lack thereof).

[JUGGERNAUT]

The key I feel in the relationship between science & religion is that religion must conform to science in the here & now and yet etain it's allegiance to faith in the past & future.

 

That serves both the development of science & religion. Science is the process by which we work to unlock the mysteries of the Universe. But religion & philosophy form the basis for defining the meaning behind those mysteries.

 

The relationship between the two is profound in human history. I think one of the best books for all students to read is Newton's Philosophy of Nature. It explains in detail how Newton's faith drove his work. What religion & philsophy offer science are the general principles that nothing is impossible & that the Universe is connected. That can be a strong driving force towards scientific development.

 

Let me give an example:

Before Einstein it was a complete mystery to religious scientists how God created our Universe in 6 days & all that was in. This came into serious conflict with evolution & the time it took to cook things. But then Einstein gave us the theory of relativity & space time coordinates. That reconciled for many of us the book of Genesis with evolution & scientific fact.

 

Now there are those who choose to continue to treat the Bible as a book written relative to our species on our planet in our time. But philosophically that makes no sense with respect to a creator of the Universe. Genesis clearly refers to that which exists that is not relative to our species, our planet, our time when it refers to stars & the heavens above. The most important aspect of Genesis is the order of creation.

It coincides with the evolution of our Universe, & our planet. That is profound when you consider the time it was written & the people it was written for.

 

I think this is the fundamental flaw of creationists. That don't use science as a tool to help explain the mysteries of faith. Likewise evolutionists ignore religion & philosophy better explain the meaning behind the science.

 

Imagine the harmony if those representing the extremes of these two groups could come together.

Edited March 25, 2005 by JUGGERNAUT

[JUGGERNAUT]

Short version:

Science is dedicated to explaining the mysteries of the Universe.

Religion & Philosophy are dedicated to explaining the meaning behind those mysteries.

You need both.

 

This in essence is the core theme of the Matrix Trilogy. Purpose represents meaning.

[knightni]

There are stem cells in the roots of your teeth as well.

[FlaSoxxJim]

There are stem cells in the roots of your teeth as well.

 

The thing is that none of the stem cells so far derived from non-embryonic tissue have shown nearly the degree of totipotency (the ability to differentiate into any type of human cell) as the embryonic lines.

 

I would absolutely love for some non-embryonic lines to be established that approach true totipotence, because the places this research can lead are way more important than the societal debates keeping the science from progressing.

[JUGGERNAUT]

The thing is that none of the stem cells so far derived from non-embryonic tissue have shown nearly the degree of totipotency (the ability to differentiate into any type of human cell) as the embryonic lines.

 

I would absolutely love for some non-embryonic lines to be established that approach true totipotence, because the places this research can lead are way more important than the societal debates keeping the science from progressing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think the greatest hope lies in the umbilical cord. Much greater R&D is being done in the eastern nations with this than in America. It's reaching a point where many hospitals there are providing services for retaining the cords after birth. It's fascinating stuff & again you can read all about it at sciencedaily.com. They are looking at everything from fighting cancer to manufacturing blood.

[southsider2k5]

Now there are reports of stem cells coming from hair cells.

 

http://news.dcealumni.com/474/290305-hair-...-of-stem-cells/

[FlaSoxxJim]

I think the greatest hope lies in the umbilical cord.  Much greater R&D is being done in the eastern nations with this than in America.  It's reaching a point where many hospitals there are providing services for retaining the cords after birth.  It's fascinating stuff & again you can read all about it at sciencedaily.com.  They are looking at everything from fighting cancer to manufacturing blood.

 

I agree I'd like to see saving cords/cord blood be a standard practice here. As it is, they'll charge you about $700 for the elective service now.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Now there are reports of stem cells coming from hair cells.

 

http://news.dcealumni.com/474/290305-hair-...-of-stem-cells/

That is crazy cool. I can't wait to see more research on that front.