Playing God

Playing God

Ratings: 8.33/10 from 94 users.

Playing GodAdam Rutherford meets a new creature created by American scientists - the spider-goat. It is part goat, part spider, and its milk can be used to create artificial spider's web.

It is part of a new field of research, synthetic biology, with a radical aim: to break down nature into spare parts so that we can rebuild it however we please.

This technology is already being used to make bio-diesel to power cars. Other researchers are looking at how we might, one day, control human emotions by sending biological machines into our brains.

More great documentaries

259 Comments / User Reviews

  1. Ihat poor guy making the about to be banned deisel

  2. This an april fool

  3. Anyone annoyed he says Bill Gates started in his garage?... Because that's not accurate. Pretty sure he combined the Apple story and Microsoft story... Minor i know but still...

  4. warning: advertisement literally every 4 to 5 minutes

  5. Compared to Kevlar? Weapons application, they didn't mention that

  6. So, how long until we do this with a human and create Spiderman? =P

  7. Hate spiders....

  8. goat smacka @ 5:46

  9. Stopped watching when they mixed religion and god into the documentary...

    1. its called playing god

  10. the thinking behind this is so flawed - not the experiments they are simply a product of flawed thinking that sees mankind as some sort of machine with out a living consciousness - this Newtonian thinking is a big part of why the human race is so behind the 8 ball on every thing ....its men thinking like men along a very narrow band of consciousness ...sure they might have aulteristic reasons for it ...but even those are flawed premises considered real - this sort of thinking is what bio tech companies are toxcifying the world for - its quite shameful and embarrassing really that this passes for intelligence when really it is so backwards in its basic understanding

    1. How about letting us in on the secret. What are you talking about?

    2. You make up your own

  11. I wonder how many comments on this thread are about synthetic biology. I think the people who made this doc knew that by using the word GOD they would gain the interest of the mass more so then by calling it Playing with Synthetic BIology.
    Wonder what the word GOD means to them?...the future?

    1. "I think the people who made this doc knew that by using the word GOD they would gain the interest of the mass more so then by calling it Playing with Synthetic BIology."


  12. "I am done in here at least."

    I certainly hope so.

  13. Moderator :

    Stop your selective unfair bias censership , please & display my 2 missing comments .

    You are a disgrace & shame to this great site & to the freedom of speech as most of these silly childish ignorant backward guys are by the way .

    Stereotypes , brainwash , prejudices .... the racist imperialistic cultural paternalistic Eurocentrism die hard , i see : proving the case of Edward Said "s great "Orientalism " book right every single moment of the day .

    Thanks for just that .

    I am done in here at least .

    1. what is a disgrace is the way you act when people dont agree with you.

      “If it had been your Lord’s will, they would all have believed – all of who are on earth! Will you then compel humankind, against their will, to believe?” (Quran 10:99)

      "To you be your religion, to me be mine." (Quran 109)

  14. "The rest of your silly ignorant arrogant rhetorics & silly assumptions are irrelevent "

    "the rest of your silly talk is irrelevent"

    "Check that material i presented , lazy soul"

    "Would you please try to make some of these vulgar ignorant stupid disgusting people behave"

    "I do not understand why these idiots feel they have to use vulgar insults or vulgar rhetorics...amazing ."

    do you think that you should be speaking like them WHILE trying to condemn the way they are speaking?

    ignore the personal attacks and just focus on the refutations people present.

    you have bought into some things because they already fell inline with the belief system you were raised in. you didnt assess it critically like a rational person ought to.

    The world should recognize and thank what the arabic world brought us in the form of knowledge. however the same applies for the mayan and aztecs, the chinese and japanese, the indian, and all those around the mediterranean.

    all cultures brought us amazing advancements. no one should ignore those. but no one should pretend that any group of people has some special place within that field because their ancestors happened to have started it.

    hell we should all be thanking africans for fire if that were the case.

    What i find really confusing is that for the amount of posts you have one here you have seemed to say very little or present very little in ways of an argument or case.

  15. This is no way of conducting discussions .

    If people do not agree with others , they should react properly .

    I do not understand why these idiots feel they have to use vulgar insults or vulgar rhetorics...amazing .

    Do your job , moderator & stop being unfair & taking sides .

    This is really childish behaviour .

  16. To whom it may concern : to the responsible moderator :

    Would you please try to make some of these vulgar ignorant stupid disgusting people behave , please ?

    I am really fed up with this irrespectful non-sense of theirs .

    I presented my material here below for them to check out , in order to help them trigger their own inquiries on the matter because it would take way too much time to discuss it i cannot afford to waste .

    It's up to them to do whatever they wanna do with that material .

    Some of these vulgar ignorant disgusting guys have been saying nothing but filth :

    Try to make them behave , please : they are a shame to this great site .

    This is outrageous , i do not wanna lose my temper any further .

    This was my very last comment in this topic at least , so.

    Assume your responsibilities, please , moderator .

    Thanks, appreciate indeed .

    1. @AbdelZ:

      We moderators do not takes sides when it comes to moderating, all are treated fairly. You have to fight your own battles.

      I suggest that you look to your own back yard, as to your post above it is very vulgar, crude, full of ad hominem disrespectful comments, calling people names etc:

      And we do take moderating seriously, so do not attempt to start up on us.

    2. What are you talking about ? I just responded to those silly insults displayed here below .

      See how i was so polite most of the time then, but then again, my patience has its own limits because i am only human , " human too human " , so .

      You are far from being fair & you are taking sides, sorry .

      One of your comments here below is evidence enough for the fact that you did / do take sides by the way .

      I do not need no one to fight my "battles " for me either ,thank you very much : that's not the point .

      You miss the whole point of the matter at hand .

      I just asked you to make these m*rons behave .

      Is that too much to ask of you ?

      Otherwise , try to leave moderating to others that might be more qualified than you are in that regard at least .

      Unbelievable .

    3. Don't rely on the moderators to change your diaper, provide you with a teething ring, replace your blanket or furnish you with a stein of beer to cry in.

    4. If you don't like the responses you receive or the attitude of some of the posters towards you, you can cease posting.

  17. Guys :

    Just take a look at the facts presented by me here below in my long post , otherwise there is no need to continue this discussion .

    When people refuse to take a look at facts & at some data, & just resort to insults , empty rhetorics & silly assumptions instead , then , there is no point in continuing the discussion .

    1. Obviously your timeframe isn't so tight after all for you are still resopnding. In other words, you're lying.

      Now, which facts--or do you have any? Or do your "facts" consist merely of the statement that Islam will return shortly.

      Achems_Razor, Over_the_Edge and Vlatko have you pegged.

    2. See my long post here below , got no time now

    3. You've already answered four posts since you first stated that you do not have the time. Why should I believe anything you write?

    4. Do you have time to grow a pair?

  18. I can understand your frustration at not being able to refute anything that I have written, probably due in large part to your lack of education, especially in science and history, as Vlad has so well brought out.

    Speaking of sticking to the facts and not making silly assumptions, how do you know that Islam will be back soon?

    You're beyond pathetic.

    1. Self-projections ?

      See what i was talking about in my long post here below . the rest of your silly talk is irrelevent, i do not have time for .

  19. The definition of science I have provided is mainstream with objectivity at the heart of it, whether you like it or not, whether you think so or not.

    What cannot be proved empirically is not science; it is merely belief or faith which has no place in science and to state that just because something cannot be proved empirically does not mean it does not exist exhibits an intellectual vacuity and scientific deficiency tantamount to believing in spirits.

    Speaking of the unscientific and faith-based, how do you know that Islam will be back soon--or do you expect us merely to take your word for it?

    P.S. Addressing Vlatko as "man" is just as Neanderthal as addressing me as "buddy." In short, what you lack in education, you also lack in class.

    1. Just take a look at the facts i presented or ....not , it's up to you indeed .

      You gotta take into consideration all existent facts if you wanna sound like a guy with a scientific approach at least , ironically enough .

      The rest of your silly ignorant arrogant rhetorics & silly assumptions are irrelevent .

      Just stick to the facts .

    2. @AbdelZ:

      Facts? am still looking, all the facts that I can find are the scientific facts that came about by the scientific method.

      If you are talking about any facts concerning any religions, there is absolutely none, not one iota of fact and not one iota of any empirical evidence.

      Except the fact that all religee's march to the beat of a different drummer!

    3. I was talking about the facts concerning the islamic origin of the scientific method , among other things

    4. There are no facts concerning the Islamic origin of the scientific method. It is all plagiarized from many other sources. Nothing in your books concerning any sciences are original.

      And if you want proof of that, bring it on!

  20. @AbdelZ,

    Your convo (scientist can't create life, life is not just a matter of material processes, science has no objectivity, science is the same as religion etc) is just a pattern with no basis whatsoever, and can be found in the words of every wannabe Islam defender on the net, in fact in every religious "fundie speaker" out there.

    Science does not owe its existence to Muslims. That is a gross exaggeration and disinformation. Science owes its existence to the spear-man in the stone-age. From there it is developed, expanded, and built upon.

    Every single culture and nation on this planet contributes to its beauty. Muslims are just one peace of the cake, nothing more. Don't flatter yourself. It is true, they've invented lot of stuff, introduced lot of new methods, made many useful experiments, in their Golden Age, but every culture had a Golden Age in the past, and made a lot of stunning contributions. Further more since 15th century, Muslims are stagnating in that regard.

    Not to mention the early Greek and Persian scientists from where Muslims got their basic knowledge.

    1. Hi, man :

      Just take a look at the facts presented in my reply , the rest of your apologetic rhetorics or assumptions are irrelevent .

      Thanks, appreciate indeed

    2. Do you mean "own" or "owe?"

      Let's also hear it for the Babylonians and Sumerians as well as the Greeks and Persians.

    3. Sorry about that @Robert. It is owe. Corrected.

  21. dam im 6 minutes in and the guy has already said a thousand times '' so THESE goats have spider gens in them''...

    yeh man get over it and tell us something new geeeeEEZ are we all so stupid?

  22. It will be like in the Hunger Games where there are jabberjays and mockingjays. Damn...

  23. The description is a bit misleading. I was expecting to see a documentary on a cross bred spider goat. Like a goat that could squirt webs from its teats and had 8 legs. That aside it really wasn't that amazing once you find out that a lengthy process is required to extract enzymes etc.. to make a few weak strands of web that kept breaking when they were pulled. Lots of really boring parts.. Really hope they get to the point where they can produce it efficiently though. Imagine the bridges you could build with that stuff

    1. You are experiencing Punctuated Equilibrium, the creation of new subspecies.

  24. Still walking backwards after watching it

  25. synthetic biology will inevitably leak into the natural world
    S B-------a new toy for humanity
    where is the research on what the side effects and repercussions on the natural world will be, isn't this part of the scientific method, before we get carried away?

  26. The future has been always in our hand, the power of imagination has no limit, I hope some day we can recreate the Universe.

  27. This is a very scarey movie if you can see the implications of some of the work, especially the last part with brain cells.

    1. wht abt the part with the petroleum factory..they are going to end up adding even more carbon dioxide to the ozone.. if they are able to industrially produce petroleum on a mass scale.

  28. Can Anyone tell me what's the name of that protein, Reflectin? I can't find it on google...

  29. Don't see a single black person leading these scientific fields. Let me know if you ever hear that the next great scientific leap has emerged from Kinshasa.

    1. what was the point of that racist comment?

    2. Easier to make things up than look them up :)

  30. Time to make women with multiple clits!

    1. That would make too much work for the man.

  31. power to the progressive thinkers of the world. If our species ever wants to find true heaven we will have to embrace these sorts of brave technologies. personally i have full confidence that heaven is not something that's handed to us on a silver platter if we simply wait for death its something we will achieve here on earth. science holds the answers and technology provides the solutions. as we are the natural offspring of this planet everything we do should be considered very natural including our hightech solutions. after all if we dont play god, who will? certainly not "god".

  32. Unbelievable .. Science Rocks. That why I put ALL My Faith into it.

  33. The word God is only brought in to make the topic controversial. It has already been determined who should be God. Those who claim to be believers will be busy with defending their faith. Those who claim to be atheists will give support only because they want to get rid of religions. The real questions are what good is this to human race? Are there already alternatives? If there are, why have they been suppressed and by whom?

    1. Yes, there is an alternative and it has not been suppressed, at least in concept. They call it education.

    2. "As for me, all I know is that I know nothing."

  34. in response to the comment thread on this page- scientists should have some sort of moral compass to help guide their actions- not saying religion, if you've watched "the mystery of lake vostock" the scientists did think about the implications and decided not to drill, b/c it would pollute the pristine water.
    in this documentary, they bring up some interesting stuff. i cannot help being reminded of GMOs - from what i understand the processes for these are generally the same, that is, genetic modification thru mixing of different DNA in order to get desired results.
    Now the GMOs are everywhere and inside of our stomachs. if they didn't want to think about the implications, they should have in the very least asked us.
    and more recently certain nations have outlawed them all together in light of new findings.
    is this science moving forward? no - it is science attempting to fix mistakes made by science.
    to truly "play god" you would have to think like a god.
    these jokers are playing themselves.
    cure cancer he says?? i wonder what causes it?- then ppl won't have to get cancer in the first place. the increase in cancers and other sicknesses is sharp in light of these "advances."
    very interesting times- don't believe the hype.

    1. "[i]f they didn't want to think about the implications, they should in the very least asked us . . . " First of all, who is "us?" Secondly, why should a scientist have to ask a layman for permission to do anything? This is too reminiscent of Bush's position on stem cell research.

      P.S. How does one think like a god?

    2. they should ask the layman when their actions will effect everyone else in the world. GMOs for example- now live in you and me- i thought i was eating just regular corn.
      round up ready for everyone- now its inside of us- more illnesses around and all studies prove this (only one human feeding study done with GMOs the rest are animals) now i will pass these cells on to my kids and my kids to their kids- the very least they could do is ask - instead they get rich. that is my problem.

      the god is in us. thinkin like a god is a metaphor- maybe over your head? if there was/is a god - a"keeper of creation" lets say- then i doubt they would allow something other than dollars to justify all actions.

      since we are on the name drop, multinationals such as Monsanto and their scientists have messed up big time, chasing the cash. Today, more and more countries are now banning GMOs altogether.

      my point is that careful considerations must be made when dealing with this kinda stuff- b/c there are implications- it requires something greater than human thoughts- which is so personal. the big picture must be viewed and metaphorically the widest view would be the metaphoric "god". (that is to say that if we can dream up any concept of something or someone that is all knowing- the "god" image would be it) whom i say we could learn a lesson from.

      genetic modification can work- but like most things it has two outcomes- a knife can be used to kill but also heal thru surgery.

      at the end of the day we all live on this spaceship together until we find a way off it. it is polite to ask your room mates if your music is too loud no?

      stem cells- i made no mention of that or Bush (u must be american). I went for a more general response the first time- and u bring it into the world of politics. though i am sure much can be said on politics and science, i never intended to make this about politics at all.

    3. First, if I were a scientist with a concern about the existence of any potentially deleterious effects of my work, I would consult with members of my peer group about the reality and scope of these effects, not with a layman who lacks the knowledge to give me anything approaching an intelligent answer. Moral or ethical decisions I would make on my own. I wouldn't need to resort to a supreme being, metaphorical or otherwise, or "go beyond human thought."

      I merely used stem cells as an example of the ignorant trying to dictate to their intellectual betters.

    4. my problem is that what u mention IS the current thinking. and look at where we are at. its laughable to think this in fact "progress."

      i'm talking about time scale- thinking about today is very human indeed, thinking about the future shows maturity- planning for the future shows even greater maturity-thinking a thousand years or ten thousand years ahead, its not in our instinct - (we'll just bury the nuclear waste in an underground bunker and hope it holds up)

      your thinking states that if you did make a decision with your own morals in mind, you then must consider your morals higher than all others, which i believe to be incorrect.

      judging by your last comment i am right on the money with that ...
      oh "intellectual betters"...i guess we really do make our own realities

    5. Yes, intellectual betters.

      If I were a scientist, I would resent someone like George Bush, Jerry Falwell, Michele Bachman or Sarah Palin telling me what I could or could not do.

      Also, you have not come up with anything approaching a solution.

    6. again with the politics? i've had no association with these characters u mention other than u mentioning them. u are no scientist, but some kinda politician or someone trying to make this about politics?

      the solution i propose is more testing and more careful considerations to experiments involving outcomes with irreversible effects, such as genetic modification. that is all.

      there is also a lot of information that is kept out of the public, and only comes to light with rogue journalism.

      your refusal to even discuss key points in my responses, and your constant returning to political figures is concerning...

      as for your solution, to summarize, "if i were a scientist i would depend on my own morals and only ask my scientist friends and screw what the lay person thinks" (even though it will effect the lay person and many generations after with no way to reverse the effects)

      i am therefore glad that you are not a scientist.
      your proficiency in skating around issues and dodging responses is very much in line with your obvious passion for american politics.

      ps. there are other countries involved as well. not just american.

      in all, i doubt this dialogue will go anywhere else...although we disagree, i mean no harm, and do enjoy a spirited debate. i did enjoy conversing with a fellow "documentary watcher", and hope we can discuss future documentaries as well.


    7. If you're going to quote me, please do so accurately. I never wrote "screw what the lay person says).

      But more important, you still haven't offered even the beginning of a solution. " . . . more testing and more careful considerations . . . " and the spiritualism limned in your previous postings do not cut it. How about something concrete?

      And yes, I insist upon bringing in political figures because all too often they, not the scientists, are the problem.

      Also because you are given to drawing conclusions based upon next to no information, let me inform you that I have no passion for American politics or its figures nor do I desire to become one of them.

    8. sorry for the misquote, so what about the lay person, intellectual dummies?
      no spiritualisms unless you count compassion for fellow earthlings.
      if you haven't been following there is a huge debate on GMOs and real people are actually getting sick. i already know there is no church in the wild. i agree that the scientist are not directly to blame- they are influenced by politics yes, as well as industry.
      everyone has a price yes? thats the only moral decision there.
      should one speak for all, theres another.

      this act now, apologize later approach is backwards no? i have to choose between wait and think approach to do it now, id wait especially if the effects cannot be reversed.
      More tests, more results, clearer picture with little flukes.

      your last sentence says a lot, and that we may have more in common than i thought. as well as ur comment about politicians being the problem.

      if money makes the world go around, then money can also make the world stop (in a sense).

      no further comment.

    9. Hi LiveFromLimbo,

      Upon reading this post, I am compelled to explain some things for you. Firstly, in regard to asking the layman, which may seem reasonable, but; in order to respond the layman must be properly informed (have a good albeit lay understanding of the processes and concepts involved). Only then can their response be considered as reasonable. The trouble obviously is most people are not informed and their response will therefore be based primarily on rumour, superstition and emotion, as yours appears to be, and this leads me to the second point.

      Genetically modified organisms have been all around us for many thousands of years. Domesticated dogs, farm animals and crops are all extremely genetically modified. Up until the recent advances in genetics, breeding was the only mechanism by which this was done, now we have a different technique. We are not abandoning the old one, for some types of genetic engineering breeding will still be the preferable method. It is apparent your view is distorted in this matter when you say 'now its inside of us- more illnesses around and all studies prove this (only one human feeding study done with GMOs the rest are animals) now i will pass these cells on to my kids and my kids to their kids' now I would like to try to calm your nerves if I am able as you are clearly frightened, and that is a fair position considering your misunderstanding.

      When you digest a food product, it is broken down into its constituent chemicals, the cells can not survive this process nor can the DNA that is contained within. In short, your gut destroys it, it is not 'inside you' and you can not 'pass it on to your kids' The extensive studies that are done on all GMOs (bred or engineered) test for differences between the chemical makeup of the new breed and the old. If the results show sufficient equivalence and no significantly greater amounts of toxic chemicals it is considered to be safe for human consumption. The thing to be aware of is, almost no food products are completely free of toxins. Tomatoes for example are direct cousins of the deadly nightshade, and contain many similar poisons but in a much smaller amount. Consider also that for large scale production the use of many highly toxic pesticides and fertilizers are used, some of which is absorbed by the organism, and while you can wash away pesticides from the exterior to some degree, (organo-phosphates are largely insoluble in water) this significantly increases the intake of poisons.

      Genetic engineering is starting to provide ways to decrease our need for these things in a way that breeding cannot, because interestingly, the unwanted or unexpected increases in toxicity or nonviable organisms occur much more often through breeding than with engineering. We know this ironically because engineered organisms are tested more thoroughly than their bred counterparts. There are many old foods that have only had the bare minimum of examination in this respect if at all, and to be truthful I'd be more worried about them. Did you know Brazil nuts contain radium (which is over a million times more radioactive than the same weight of uranium) at a level roughly 1000 times that of other foods? So when you argue for more trials on either animals or humans for the 'effects' of GMOs, I say what about all the untested non GMOs? especially if we want to find the root causes of recently (or not) discovered diseases and their trends.

      There are valid concerns about the possibility of engineered GMOs breeding with our old GMOs and thus spreading the modified DNA around the population of those organisms and the difficulties in preventing this, for example, a strain of corn that is resistant to pests that rely solely on the corn could in theory eventually spread throughout the entire corn population causing the extinction of the pest species - which might lead to imbalances in the food chain etc, but again we have been screwing around with this to a much greater degree already with introduction of non native species to habitats around the globe and there have been problems, but eventually given time (and conscientious human efforts), nature achieves balance.

      I hope that eases your worries somewhat,
      Regards, Sam.

    10. round up ready corn: i know that it is blended with a pesticide. newer studies suggest that when eaten it makes its way into the stomach, and attaches itself to germs and bacteria needed for digestion. This has led to many other sickness/complications. thats a summary of info i've found. also when GMOs were new, scientists did know that there would be effects that they could not control/reverse. multinationals such as monsanto influenced the FDA into making it legal. numerous animal feeding studies do suggest an increase in sick animals as well as increase of the medication and length of time it takes for sick animals to recover. the offspring also show increased sickness/deformity. only one human feeding study available should also trigger the red flags.

      non GMO foods- of course some natural foods are poison. u can't walk into a forest and start eating anything you want, so why would i assume that eating natural non-GMO things would automatically be healthy.

      i do believe that in the short term it might be ok to eat, but just like any other poison, if u take enough for long enough, the body will react.

  35. I can't comprehend why scientists tend to ignore God (The Original Programmer). Genesis and Revelations is proof enough for myself.

    1. Obviously your standard of proof is very low and antedeluvian.

    2. I think you might find that blind faith and belief in insidious fictions like genesis and revelations are somewhere near the top of a list of reasons why scientists do tend to ignore your christian god.

      Regards, Sam.

  36. New discoveries are meant to make more money rather than to help people in need. Just explore those treatments that have been discovered or used by so many rather than the drugs (with their side effects) sold by the pharmaceutical companies. Just use natural seeds that are not tolerant to pesticides and do not need more spray. Just stop wasting and manipulating world's markets but share what can be found and there will be more than enough. Creating new creatures that produce useable products is what they want the majority to believe, creating new bio-weapons is what they intend and invest in.

    1. Iyle: Well now, that was cheerful-----But, my gut feeling is telling me every word was true!

    2. Did you feel the tremor from the earthquake on Monday? Was it close to you?
      You are in the Philippines, right?

    3. No, we're in Metro Manila. It's a different island. But, there a big crack in one of our walls. We have smaller earthquakes often. I'm waiting for the big one here (I've put chicken wire inside my kids walls). I saw a video where the people with chicken wire inside thier walls all lived; those without it, died. Be smart; live longer!

    4. Happy to hear that your family is allright!

    5. Az: Thanks! I've just got an eery feeling, however, that a big one is coming to Manila. They mocked me when I made them put chicken wire in my kids bedrooms (wish I could have done the whole house that way), but I've got a feeling I'll be alive to say "I told ya so!" someday soon. The tensil strength of the wire won't stop the walls from cracking, but it does stop them from crumbling for at least a few minutes which would be long enough to get out of the house after the earthquake. I saw on the news, one woman whoes house is build over the fault line here in Manila, and she stuck her head through a crack that was splitting her house down the middle (litterally). I thought, "Well, what a stupid woman! Why live in a house directly over the fault line that's actively moving apart!" Shocking to me. When that fault slips, her and her family don't stand a chance (baring God's grace). My philosophy is: Prepare the best you can, and then trust God for what you cannot predict or prepare for--- That and don't tempt God by living in a house over an active faultline!

      I tried to map the fault lines, and as far as I can tell, we're not directly over one, nor are we directly below the dam that's full of water like thousands are. Egads! And Manila is below sealevel in places. The wall that keeps the water back is not even that high. I just cringe at the utter possible devistation that's could happen in just a moment here sometimes. But, I'm happy in my house on highground with my extra thick wall beams and chickenwire in the walls and I'll leave the rest up to God. My master mason father-in-law and brother-in-law suggest we put one more central beam in the center of our living room as the weight of the rooms above it can slowly warp the beams over time below. Good idea I think.

      Peace to you,

      Charles B.

  37. All I can say this is scary that this can actually happen

  38. playing GOD is not a good thing at all the gmo's are having a very bad effect on human life and on the land where the crops are, the result of eating the corn and other crops of rice,wheat,or whatever the modified crop is giving women miscariages and affecting the land and animals these gmo's are feed too ,things on earth need to be natural or they will destroy everyone in the future

    1. @LenArnold
      we have been playing god for a long time. as pointed out in a previous post by Malchik cows,dogs,cats,broccoli,bananas corn and countless others would not exist without human intervention and selective breeding. what do you call natural? please give me a list of animals and foods that we could afford and survive with that have not been selectively bred or modified? there have been many mistakes,examples of corruption and greed behind breeding and gene modification but if we dismiss advancements due to the possibility for these things then we might as well stop all medical research now, close down most farms, get rid of our pets and so on

    2. Links to evidence of your claims is always helpful when trying to convince people with broad statements such as the ones you posit. You may be correct but I have not heard of any examples of which you speak, and like the rebuttal below, genetic modifcation has been happening through natural and artificial selection for millenia.

    3. That is dumbest comment ever. It is wrong on almost each and every aspect. Gosh, so much depend on how fast we understand and use DNA, so this ignorance is a big strike our survival.

      Now a day, we depend on natural world to supply our food and means. Harvesting nature by man changes the long established natural eco-systems. The main reason why we must learn how to create our own food and other means is that to not disturb the natural world. The consequences of interrupting long created eco-systems may indeed back fire and lead to repercussions for humans. In this perspective, the independence from natural world ecosystems is a blessing, not curse. There is nothing, and I highlight NOTHING, in GMO rice, chicken or ill that is damaging for us or leads to miscarriages. Even if there were (which so far I am not aware of), we have to work this problems out. By stopping GMO crops and restrict too far the GMO labs we indeed are opting for less optimal crop raising and need more terrain to feed the same amount of people. The main reason behind, been that it doesn't feel good or it tastes different...

      Please stop the conservationism and anti-science movements. To be conservative just because it feels safe is just dumb. Think twice when you buy bio-natural products, those products my be harvested from natural eco-systems in a natural way. Do not follow your instincts, think with your head.

  39. I deal only with the temporal.

    1. I am off to a music concert, i enjoyed being able to exchange with you. It is my perception that the spelled word god can have a temporal quality to it although the present popular meaning of the word does not.
      Have a nice saturday!

    2. As i woke up this morning i wondered, what happens in people's mind when the word God is pronounced (read)? It made me realize the answer is different if i say God or if i say Dieu.
      Dieu for me (as i am French) brings in my mind the bagage of my very youth, my mind to which i have no control for it's instant reaction, goes immediately to the image that was first imprinted on my self and then to the many more images that piled on top of the initial perception.
      When i say the word God something different happens because i learned to include the word god in my vocabulary at the approximate age of 12, when i started learning english and when i had already refused to accept Dieu as a possible being or entity.
      I would be curious to know what any of you think of this. Am i right to think that most atheist who once were theist, when the word God is pronounced or read, have the initial image of their past first and then the opposition to that come on top.
      What if we could purge this image and replace it with something instantly accepted?
      I believe if the science community and their followers (who in fact is all of us) reinvented the word God, it would not change the words Jesus, Mohamed, Buddha ect...
      It would settle a very needed balance. God is some IT not some ONE and all the deliverers, messiah, prophets, dieties, supremes would be some One who were inspired by IT.
      But then, what can IT be?

  40. For what i know, god could be the absence of being or the mass presence of being.

  41. my definition of god
    god- word used to describe the unknown. once a very large and powerful word but as the unexplained was explained the word has been forced to get smaller and smaller hiding in the spaces between explanations while we will most likely never have all the answers, we will learn to demand proof for an answer instead of taking an answer based on faith

  42. god: the combined awareness of humans, the ever changing reality we are aware of in the now as a mass, as oppose to an individual actuality.

    1. Whatever that means.

  43. "And some day there will be flying cars..."

    Ever notice that what comes from all of these scientific endeavors never matches the sales pitch?

  44. goodbye fifty4fourty, hello dewflirt.

    1. @fifty4fourty or dewflirt
      why the name change?

    2. Dewflirt now, its an old name for hares. Fifty had baggage and i like to travel light :)

    3. no one will mistake you for a boy dewy cute...

    4. Thanks Az, not so sure about the cute bit though ;)

    5. dew :something like or compared to such drops of moisture, as in purity, delicacy, or refreshing quality.

      cuter than doflirt.

    6. Haha, you are giving me qualities I don't possess, doflirt would probably be more fitting ;)

    7. Well, I'm going off topic here but I'm going for it.
      Both of your screen names are clever but I like your new one better. I find it interesting how people come up with their alter ego. I am called tom and tomregit here although they have nothing to do with my actual name. It's often hard to tell what a person's avatar is because they are tiny. My interest is aviation, and I have been privileged to pilot the pretty little biplane the picture. It was built in 1934 and is a Tigermoth. I spell it backwards without the letter H.

    8. And I thought it was Latin for Tom rules.

    9. I'll use the excuse that my Latin is rusty, when truthfully I'm not that clever.


      The Names of the Hare
      translated from middle english by Seamus Heaney

    11. Now I understand. I would never have found that great bit of writing on my own. I appreciate the new name even more.

    12. I thought my avatar was a rabbit 'til I finished her but she ended up more hare. I love poetry and sewing, folkart and animals, I like them all untamed. I like imperfect things, when you plod on in spite of mistakes they add to the finished piece. I think I named my hare rather than myself.

  45. I've been around for 30 years, give or take, and this science is going to implement itself as all the other did. We cannot stop it. We'll see amazing things come out of it and some really horrible things as well. BUT in the end we are going to be nostalgic about the good old days (quality in food, people talking face to face, playing in the neighbourhoods...ONE human race, not the flying ones and the still walking kind of people) xD

  46. Remarkable science, I'm impressed !!! the title overstates the achievements though. There is a lot more to life as we know it and GOD dose not exist in the form that many believe .

    1. How do you know how god exists?

    2. Even I don't know in what form GOD exists but many of us humans are bound to be wrong.

    3. Just answer the question... it was 'How do you know god exists?' not 'in what form does god exist' which would be a loaded question anyway, implying that god existed (in some form).


    4. I prefer not to call the Ultimate force that binds the entire universe, everything that is in it and beyond so intelligently and beautifully
      "GOD" but I have to use the limiting and labeling language for communicating purposes therefor I'll not let you draw me in to using the terminology that is limiting. call what you don't understand "GOD" or try to explain what you know exist using other words "Ala", "Buddha" , Ultimate Force (in my own words) the common point is we all don't know but only trying to .

    5. I prefer not to call the Absolute force that binds the entire universe, everything that is in it and beyond so intelligently and beautifully
      "GOD" but I have to use the limiting and labeling language for communicating purposes therefor I'll not let you draw me in to using the terminology that is limiting. call what you don't understand "GOD" or try to explain what you know exist using other words "Ala", "Buddha" , Absolute Force (my own understanding) the common point is we all don't know but we are only trying to .

    6. How do you know that such a force exists?

    7. If the complex order of the universe does not convince you of the existence of such force; I don't know what will and it seams a very low starting point for a debate that's existed for many years

    8. This is not an explanation, an argument or a justification. It's merely an bald assertion, a very low starting point indeed.

    9. Yep, no hair on that assertion at all ! :)

    10. If you were asked to REDEFINE the word GOD, what would you use as a phrase in the "new dictionary" taking in consideration that none of the present definitions are allowed?

    11. GOD- the Absolute force/fabric that binds cosmic life.
      that's my understanding of "GOD" at present and is subject to change with more knowledge of what it proven to be true.

    12. It's still an unwarranted assumption.

    13. Robert what would be your definition?...see the rules below, come on dare to say something .... you cannot eliminate the word, reinvent it. I'll come up with mine too.

    14. I have no opinion and quite frankly I couldn't care less, except that it bothers me when others make assertions on scientific matters based on nothing scientific.

    15. You, a man of words cannot come up with a new meaning for the word God? What do you fear? People's opinion of your new definition?
      The "word" god will not die, it will only transform to a new meaning when people reinvent it. It is just a word like any other words made of letters.
      I don't understand why people fear to own it differently.
      I am NOT talking science here, i am talking language.

    16. You, too, make an unwarranted assumption: namely, that I'm a theist.

    17. Not at all, i know you are not a theist. That's the reason i trusted you to be able to redefine the word god into something entirely new but your answer seem to say that god is a supreme embodiment outside of us.
      I believe that that is where the problem arises in the world.

    18. I never meant to imply that a supreme embodiment really exists, only the concept of one. Perhaps my later post will clarify this for you.

    19. On second thought, let me put it this way, a supreme is merely an embodiment of our inability to see most things in anything but a cause and effect relationship.

    20. But it might be that way, if there is a god at all then it is that last split second before the big bang. All that has happened since is a result of that. The trouble starts when people try to make it personal, make an intelligence out of it. I guess if you go one step further, everything is god.

    21. Perhaps I should have been clearer. The concept of a supreme being is synthetic and by its very nature unprovable in an empirical (read scientific) sense. The problem is that in an effort to justify their beliefs, too many people inject a priori reasoning where it is inappropriate, e.g., there's a universe, therefore something must have created it and that something was--Then they further aggravate the matter by insisting that this conjecture be taught and accepted (by force if necessary) by others.

    22. I agree with you, a supreme being makes no sense to me. But the word god can be "something" other than what it's been. It has to, it won't die, it will only transform. So why concentrate on what it has been called or described when it is necessary to give it a completely new meaning.

    23. Quite frankly, I wish that this concept were purged from all human thought. It's enough of a task to understand the temporal.

    24. I agree the present concept needs to be purged, as i said the word god will never be obliterated, it will be replaced with something that can be accepted by the science community, something new, something other, something that hasn't been established, something simple, something that cannot be denied.
      What is that?
      Please do not bring the past into this...bring the unknown, the unsaid, the unthought.

    25. Earlier on you mention: "Keith Nickle, the latter still a practicing Christian". Would you care to quote a few phrases of something he said that you agree with?

    26. Everything he writes in "The Synoptic Gospels," an introduction. The man's scholarship, especially his knowledge of the Greek of the New Testament, is exceptional.

      On a personal note, he took the time to resond to a question I had concerning the structure of the Greek of the New Testament.

    27. Can't argue with that.

    28. SPACE is where all cosmic life live in. Scientifically we don't know what it is yet but all life interacts WITH and IN it. That to me would be a binding force/fabric .
      "Unwarranted assumption"

    29. This says nothing about your assumption of the existence of a cosmic force.

    30. That's called NATURE. Not "god" (whatever that empty term means). Your reasoning is flawed by equivocation.

  47. I think this science is great. However I have reservations about the safety measures put in place. Mishaps happen all the time. Three instances are: 1) the well known Africanized honeybees, 2) farm salmon that were bred for the table, not endurance that escaped their steel cages when a nor’easter hit Main in December of 2000 and 3) the cane toad that was introduced in Australia and Florida. My major concern is that when there is money involved, it doesn’t take long for increased profits to prevail over stringent safety measures.

    That being said, in the right hands this could revolutionize medicine and agriculture in ways we cannot even imagine yet. In the wrong hands it can also wreak ecologic disasters that are equally unimaginable.

  48. Can anyone tell me what unexpected consequences there might be with this, I mean could you accidentally create changes you haven't planned for or is it too exact for that to happen ? I'm wondering if it could end up being an ecological 'disaster' like the rabbits in Oz or mink in Devon. Tweak a spider too much and suddenly it kills the wrong insects or something. Can the goats breed and if so would their kids produce the same silk milk ?

  49. Very interesting doc, i can imagine that already they are ahead of that, and in a month even more so....progress is proceeding forward all ways.
    To think that we can stop science steps ahead is to not understand humans.
    To think that this will be used uniquely for the good of men is to not understand humans.
    To think that this has nothing to do with the incorporeal is to not understand humans.

    1. What do you mean by the incorporeal?

    2. Incorporeal is certainly not meaning the same to me as it is to you because of it's very un.nature. There is no description that would satisfy you from me, but perhaps you can tell me what the word means to you.

    3. That's not the issue. You're the one who used it and it's up to you to inform Achems_Razor and me what you mean by it.

    4. The incorporeal is everything that is not yet and that is not known to be seeked yet....and it is much more than that too.
      I know better than getting into an argument with either one of you. I wouldn't want to give you this pleasure.
      edit: Achems if you like this, let it be known...own it, but you don't have to!

    5. If you want to avoid an argument about the incorporeal, don't mention it

    6. There are ways to have discussions other than with arguments bordering on fights, one has to pick and choose who that is possible with....and remain silent or evasive when it appears that a confrontation is to be the only possible outcome.
      If you noticed, that comment was not addressed to you in particular. It is an opinion.

    7. Az, actually I am waiting also, what do you mean by incorporeal? Are you referring to magic and such. The spirit world, things that go bump in the night?

    8. If there was a bump i would expect it in that moment between the sleepy and the waky.

  50. I really enjoyed this doc. I still think we need to be careful and take our time with it though. This reminds me of Jurassic Park where he was quick to build dinosaurs, package them up and sell it to the public much too quickly without really testing the consequences.

    1. "I still think we need to be careful and take our time with it though." How do you expect to accomplish this?

    2. I give, but I dont think it should be allowed to be a free for all knowing the inherent dangers involved. Last thing we need is some super bug wiping out the population because some distraught individual was able to download from the internet the several DNA strands needed to make such a bug.
      I do think that internet idea is interesting though. But just in the way free market capitalism needed to be regulated so does this.

    3. Considering that only data can be downloaded from the internet, this type conjecture is science fiction, but interesting to ponder. What a great way to obtain a Rolls Royce.

      Now, who's to do the regulating--certainly not those with religious affiliations.

    4. The option to download dna software is already here, according to the doc anyway. Imagine having a cell source free of the DNA, then downloading the DNA code for something, insert into the cell then somehow incubate it to life. Crazy. On top of that you have a program on your computer that allows you to Cut and Splice the DNA strand to your desire. I could see this being done maybe for something like flowering plants. You download the DNA for lets say a common red rose, but you want the color to be 'purple' or some crazy hue you got created from photoshop. So the computer replaces the DNA to make red with that to make purple. The full strand is created, you insert it into the cell, and presto you now have a new cool rose to plant in the garden.

    5. You should have stated it was the DNA code which is certainly a data transmission.

      So how do you propose preventing potential disaster?

    6. I have no idea,lol.

      But you can have Uranium and if you cant enrich it, it doesnt do much good. So I guess even if the codes are available, hopefully the ability to manufacture them into proteins and then into life will be somewhat sophisticated and expensive.

      If not then it could get scary. The material that would allow for life of organsims would have to be regulated. I guess in the same way pseudophedrine is placed behind the pharmacy making it harder for drug dealers to make meth.

    7. I hope you're not one of those who believes that due to the possibility of the technique falling into the wrong hands, we should curtail the research.

      In a similar vein, the attitude of many of our political figures to stem cell research is disgusting and ignorant in a medieval sort of way.

    8. Regulate not curtail.
      We invented the atomic bomb. Now look at how we fear it in the hands of terrorists. Was it worth it? Nuclear energy is clean efficient cheap, but we spend a lot of money protecting ourselves from it in the wrong hands. All it takes is one small suitcase bomb to creep into New York City and kill 8 million people.

  51. Very interesting doc... I've long been a believer in Ray Kurzweil's view of the exponential growth of technology. That being said, it's still amazing to see the pace at which these advancements are being made. We are sitting upon the dawn of the Technological Singularity, what a great time to be alive :)

  52. Just shut the **** up with all that "is it right, is it wrong?" -bull****, your arguments are useless. The fact is that these breakthroughs will help future generations, they'll improve lives, provide ease, or enable people to cope and survive, all depending on the state of the world at that point.

    It's hilarious to see how many get caught up in, for example, some animal rights/testing ****, and do not see the bigger picture. Imagine that, let's say, your child gets diagnosed with a likely fatal disease if not treated properly, and there's a effective cure, which has been tested on animals. Does some animal rights really matter at that point? Would you seriously boycott that?

    And if not, then newsflash, you don't really support animal rights! Or is there perhaps a certain limit, until which animal testing is not acceptable? Vaccinations, antibiotics etc. are ok, but makeup is a no-no. LMAO. God damn macbook hippies... go eat your new age dreadlocks...

  53. OK, so you all must fully support human cloning and DNA altering? I suppose you all want tests run on animals first? FYI I am not a religious fanatic, I believe God is possible, I do not go to Church and worship or any of that.
    I believe in afterlife but I don't believe God must exist to make it so.

    These animals don't appear to be suffering in this video but the amount of suffering we cause in the name of science, I find hard to justify. I find it hard to believe such a large % of population thinks otherwise. At what point if any do we draw the line on suffering, death?

    We have yet to see the damage Monsanto and others like it cause, too bad we brought animals into that experience as well. Experiments have shown, animals if given a choice will not touch Monsanto type foods. I can't wait for the future!

    1. "OK, so you all must fully support human cloning and DNA altering?"

      Human cloning has been a reality for millions of years. In fact, it happens in nature. Monozygotic (identical) twins are two exact copies. The same in every detail. People seem to believe a clone will be like you, when in fact, it won't. Twins are not the same person. Social conditioning has a greater impact on what make's a person a person than what their flesh dictates. But why would you want to clone yourself? That would be dumb. But I would like to clone my kidney if I were in need of one.

      And DNA altering has always existed; it's called evolution. The little spermatozoa in your testicles are filled with newly altered DNA for the next generation. Also, domestication is a product of DNA altering through selection.

      "I suppose you all want tests run on animals first?"

      I think I would definitely like medical technology tested on an animal before it goes into me. I don't think anyone would support another Unit 731. Do I wish rats to be harmed in vein? No, but when it's medicine that can cure a human's suffering, it's well worth it.

      "FYI I am not a religious fanatic, I believe God is possible, I do not go to Church and worship or any of that.
      I believe in afterlife but I don't believe God must exist to make it so."

      I'd prefer it, too, if we would ignore a religious debate. It's just when people use the word "limit", it usually refers back to religious morality, which is often built from ignorance rather than actual threats.

      "These animals don't appear to be suffering in this video but the amount of suffering we cause in the name of science, I find hard to justify. I find it hard to believe such a large % of population thinks otherwise. At what point if any do we draw the line on suffering, death?"

      Suffering is inevitable in nature. Everything, including you, will come to a point where it will suffer. The point is to limit suffering buy making one's quality of life better. Medicine and food of great quantity can alleviates suffering.

      "We have yet to see the damage Monsanto and others like it cause, too bad we brought animals into that experience as well. Experiments have shown, animals if given a choice will not touch Monsanto type foods. I can't wait for the future! "

      Science is simply understanding the natural world. Everything made by science, whether it be this goat or a plant immune to disease, follow natural laws -just made by humans instead of nature. Whether corporations like Monsanto want to exploit science for profits is irrelevant. Anybody can exploit anything. Putting up limits to progression to avoid people's exploitation is wrong. Humans would have never made it past the invention of the club.

    2. "I think I would definitely like medical technology tested on an animal before it goes into me. I don't think anyone would support another Unit 731. Do I wish rats to be harmed in vein? No, but when it's medicine that can cure a human's suffering, it's well worth it."

      Just something to consider, we for the most part all agree, animals have a better sense of smell and hearing, for all we know all 5 senses are much more intense than our own. What conclusion might we have about how they experience pain? These medical experiments are done w/o anesthetic, that is pretty much common knowledge. That is the way it is and nothing will change that unless the people push hard for them to change. Your support I guess says your OK like it is. You may say oh well, I wish it were different, bla bla bla, I wouldn't support animal experimentation even with anesthesia but my opposition would not be so strong. Anesthesia of course means higher cost and the $ seems all too often the deciding factor even on animal suffering for our benefit.

    3. I hope you're not trying to tell science what is off limits.

  54. Jesus Christ, another sensational-driven title courteous of the BBC.

    Great documentaries, but like most BBC television, they basically fuel and ride religious uproar in almost every scientific doc they make.

  55. People who believe in God. We have just the thing. A little green light inserted into your brain. You'll be just like us. Normal, perfect in every way. No errant thoughts allowed.

  56. If Utah is doing it, it has to be pretty uncontroversial, given the amount of conservatives there. The dramatic title is just there to attract attention, people who took it too seriously are either really gullible or overtly self-righteous.

    1. How is that, we are manipulating mother nature!? The wonder and awe of life itself isn't enough? We are manipulating what was once considered, off limits. Don't mess with mother nature!
      Self righteous my ass.

      Love animals: God has given them the rudiments of thought and joy untroubled. Do not trouble their joy, don't harass them, don't deprive them of their happiness, don't work against God's intent. Man,? do not pride yourself on superiority to animals; they are without sin, and you, with your greatness, defile the earth by your appearance on it, and leave the traces of your foulness after you - alas, it is true of almost every one of us!"~Fyodor Dostoyevsky

    2. Who are you to be telling others what to do?

      And, for that matter, how do you know so much about God's intent and the deity's relatinoship to animals.

    3. "How is that, we are manipulating mother nature!?"

      Humans have been modifying nature for thousands of years. Find a cow in the wild (don't try, the species is extinct), or a wild strawberry bigger than your thumb nail. You know broccoli? Doesn't exist in the wild.

      "The wonder and awe of life itself isn't enough?"

      It's even more awe inspiring when you research and understand the natural world.

      "We are manipulating what was once considered, off limits."

      Nonsense. There is no "off limits" -only limits set by willfully ignorant people. Every piece of technology, medicine or food in your fridge is a result of people working past these "limits" you speak of. The church has been setting "limits" on human progression for centuries in fear that people will discover the natural world for what it is. Only now people value an appendectomy over keeping your bodies temple sacred, or understanding that the earth rotates around the sun.

    4. Well done.

      That's one of thes thing about religionists. They make up for their aversion to scientific discovery by dictating to their betters what is off limits.

      For these acts and others, they bring all the hate and derision to which they are subjected upon themselves.

    5. @robertallen1
      Hate and derision, no one brings it like you do. When oh when are you going to say something that causes me to believe you have an IQ even equal to that of a chimp? xx

    6. And when or when are you going to write something intelligent and well-informed?

  57. I think we should embrace this technology. Could there be accidents? There almost certainly will be, but we shouldn't let the fear of what might happen hamper what should be the next great leap forward for engineering.

  58. Just imagine what they are doing we don't know about!

  59. OoOoOps! Somebody said the "G" word!

  60. what about tr legal side of this. Thiese people ar going to seek patent righs on theirs inventions. Like the medicine (drug) companies. Money/power.

    1. Plenty of companies already patent individual genes for Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). Most of these patents pertain to plants, but being that DNA is DNA no matter what living form it engenders the supreme court decisions that make patenting of plant DNA legal assure the legality of patenting the DNA of all life forms.

      I should elaborate before I'm attacked (it is a comment section after all) I am not condoning the legal jurisdiction of these patents, only affirming the existence of said court decisions. If anything I find patenting genes to be an inhibitor of scientific progress. If only one company can do research on a patented gene, then the ability to discover more novel uses is significantly diminished.

    2. We are sure to destroy everything, eventually, mankind can't seem to help itself.

    3. I disagree, us humans are amazing.

  61. sick experiment like this guy 'scientist' looks totally sick

  62. I do see the value of this particular achievement but am quite concerned at how the Military establishments across the globe will try to use it for their own advancements in what they consider to be the betterment of humanity.

    All technology has been given to us by God. Man fails to give God credit and has ended up using all GREAT ADVANCEMENTS for power and destruction. Instead of bettering all life and bringing an end to the worlds famine problems and 3rd world living conditions. This just goes to show how the world's problems could be solved. Unfortunately that kind of tecnoligy would undoubtively hurt the prophets of the few who decide the fates of the rest of us.

    Any one that trusts our governments to do the right thing needs to have their heads examined. You can make a sound bet that if they have mastered these new sciences there are already haynous crimes taking place as we speak against new life forms that would chill us to the bone. All life needs to be protected from being victimized by those who seek power . How can this sort of study be policed. Where do we draw the lines in the sand of where not to go with this knowledge. Who can be trusted to safe guard these study's, and just how long before man trys to use this to afflict instead of advance ???

    1. what god? my or yours? btw my god is greater than yours

    2. haha I'm surprised you haven't been bombarded with comments by now Lex... Maybe they're just happy you believe in a God be it Allah, Zeus, Zoroaster, Shiva, Seth, Odin, Yahweh, Elohim, El, Arinna, Loki, Don, Nezha... There's so many, and they all control everything yet want slightly (if not completely) different things from us.

      At least with so many possibilities you can just worship the one that demands of you the exact things you want to do anyway. Might as well take advantage of your choices!

    3. Excuse me, but how do you know that all technology was given to us by god.

    4. Robert, i know you are a smart guy or at least i keep trying to convince myself of that. Here you have an opportunity to write about an interesting and perhaps controversial technology and you choose instead to fuel once again a conversation about God where you will end up bashing someone about their beliefs....easy to foresee.
      Don't you ever get tired of that? Let us benefit from your opinion in a positive way, you are pretty good at it when you try.

    5. The technology is interesting, but it wouldn't be controversial were it not for the religionists. Therefore, they deserve to be bashed.

    6. @robertallen1
      'The technology is interesting' - wow! At least you mentioned the actual documentary content for once. You're making progress, well done! xxx

    7. What's controversial about this is the power it could cause if used in the wrong hands. Does'nt have anything to do with religion. I think this technology is great and its benefits are huge. But as someone said with great power comes great responsibilty.

    8. Fine, as long as you don't use this fear to advocate limiting or curtailing this research.

    9. I look forward to the parting of the ways. You will become a robotic machine and I will continue my eternal spiritual experience :)

    10. How do you know this?

    11. Well said:)

    12. Az, why do you want to get into an argument with Robert? There are times when people have an honest disagreement. He made a comment that was not inflammatory but could be construed as an honest question begging an answer. You have climbed all over it and not only decided you knew his future course of action but told everyone what it would be. Your first comment on this doc was "here we god again" in anticipation of getting involved by upbraiding posters here, with a willing group of enablers for whom you remain sweetness and light, even after dropping the first turd in the punchbowl. You have made literally thousands of comments here and it would do a world of good for you to take whatever time is necessary to review and honestly assess some of them. People are neither villains nor heroes all of the time. You have called me on the carpet, at times with cause and at times without.
      I fail to understand why you think it's OK for you to start an argument or become involved in one and then back away while slinging innuendo and waiting for white knights.
      Look at the comment you made that I am replying to and honestly tell me if you believe it is fair. I'm no defender of Robert nor does he need one, but the passive/aggressive nature of your remarks is unfair and most unbecoming.

    13. I did not get in an argument with Robertallen1, i actually enjoyed "some" of his posts and was quite impressed by his participation with Jo McKay in The Bible Unearthed. He obviously has studied the bible in depth which tells me at one time he was quite taken by religion himself (i may be wrong).
      My turd "here we god again" came out as a fart, you feel it there and you let it out in public...sorry for the smell!
      Valtko gives a thumb up to your comment doesn't surprise me, i think he likes all this god bashing although he politely stays out of brings the numbers up. This bashing will not stop with me, or Robert or anyone...the bashing is all around us, it circles the world.
      Happily there is a dimension one can escape to, a dimension where hatred has no place.
      Your opinion counts...especially for people who agree with you.

    14. You are wrong. By the time I reached puberty, I was no longer taken with religion, but I have studied the Bible in some depth although not enough to render me a scholar in any sense of the word; however, I have the highest respect for biblical scholars such as Bart Ehrman, Richard Friedman and Keith Nickle, the latter still a practicing Christian.

      Even if I disagreed with Jo Mcay, I can respect her opinion because it is based on knowledge stemming from research (read scholarship) and I looking forward to any additional posts from her. On ther other hand, opinions based on superstition, blind faith, dogma (a trio cut from the same cloth) and downright ignorance don't count--whether you agree with them or not and there is simply no room for them in any serious discussion.

    15. I hope I wasn't too harsh. I said "want to get into an argument" It may have been more accurate to say attempt rather than want. I never implied that you had gotten into an argument, so your denial misses my point and falls on deaf ears.
      I too have studied the bible; my purpose was to learn. How could I have an opinion on its worth without knowing about it. I was never taken by religion and although you have jumped to that conclusion for Robert he may not have been either; I don't profess to know his rational.
      I may have been unclear. The "turd" referred to the fact that you also profess to know someones future course of action; "'ll end up bashing someone about their beliefs....easy to foresee."
      No comments I make are for the purpose of getting a thumbs up but in the same sentence your ascribe an ulterior agenda for the site owner and think you know his mind and motives.
      Continuing in the same pattern ".....especially for people who agree with you." is an example of passive/aggression that borders on childishness. Your opinion counts Az, even when I disagree. Know thyself.
      I did politely ask whether you felt your comment was fair and you apparently gave it no consideration. When one feels he knows the thoughts, feelings, intentions, and future actions of others it is wise to take on the burden of noblesse oblige.

    16. Your line: "I fail to understand why you think it's OK for you to start an argument or become involved in one", "even after dropping the first turd in the punchbowl"
      I have been here long enough to have that thought "here we god again"...should i have abstained? in retrospect no. You did call that first comment a turd.
      My line: "you choose instead to fuel once again a conversation about God where you will end up bashing someone about their beliefs....easy to foresee." should i have abstain? No.. He didn't take it the way you took it. Show me one comment where Robert has not bashed someone who express spiritual beliefs, i might have missed it. Plus he says they deserve it. So he is not debating that fact as you are.
      My line: "Valtko gives a thumb up to your comment doesn't surprise me, i think he likes all this god bashing although he politely stays out of brings the numbers up." Although i think that, i should have kept it to myself.
      My line: "He obviously has studied the bible in depth which tells me at one time he was quite taken by religion himself (i may be wrong)."
      I was wrong about him supporting a religious view in his adult life as he pointed out....something i had left open.
      Am i to expect you to answer this comment without being harsh...i don't know. I wish i was.

    17. By the way thank you for your opinion on my opinions. Now that you have made yourself clear...i'll ponder on that and act on the result of my thoughts.

    18. @El_Ribit, happy to see that my comment (or should i say Tomregit's) dragged you out of that you have a file...will be looking forward to reading your opinions on docs and matters of life.

    19. Az, after composing my previous post I see you have replied to me with a comment but written @El_Ribit. Who is El-Ribit and why would you direct this to me? Are you referring to me? Is it a mistake? What file are you referring to? Is it a joke I don't get? Was his post deleted? Is there a reason you are vying for my attention? So many questions.
      Are you all right?

    20. I noticed El_Ribit has given you a like on your comment, i also noticed it is his first ever action on TDF...i was just welcoming him, but i couldn't welcome him directly because he hasn't written anything yet.
      Am i all right? Sure..i am just fine
      How about you?

    21. I see. (slaps forehead) I don't pay close attention to likes and, for the life of me, as simple as it was, I could not understand what you meant. I'll try to be on the ball a bit more. Thanks for clarifying.
      I would also like to say that every person needs a "myopia check" occasionally. In the past you have pointed out my instances of misplaced aggression where I was capable of making a measured and thoughtful response. I honestly took it to heart and, though I don't always succeed, I have tried to avoid my old nemesis; smart as_ed anger/aggression. Probably this passes unnoticed, but I think I've done better after becoming aware of it. Although I may be blunt at times I remind myself to be a bit more open minded and fair. I just don't always succeed.

  63. Now, the scientists can make Killer Bees look like a kindergarten experiment. 'Course, the thousand plus people that the Africanized killer bees killed and those that lay in the bee's path probably wouldn't think it's no big deal....

  64. and Micheal craton is savor of science how ironic :) with a moral compass of rational thought, hopefully we know what we are doing wich is probably

  65. The first thought that came to my mind when i saw the title was: "here we god again".

    1. Yeah, thought I'd drop my comment and run. Only one way to settle the argument, Dawkins V God, Queensbury rules :)

  66. thumbs up for those who have watched this 'cause of the catchy title... (^_^)

  67. Like all potentially good things, it`ll end up in the worst possible hands, for gain or control through exploitation.
    At least thats what my spidey senses are telling me, ive learnt to trust thoses over the years.

  68. bad title - but i get the point

    there is only one group of people that have "played god" throughout history.

    they stand on the pulpits

    1. Power tends to corrupt in all areas of life, not just religion. There are many that abuse power; The Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Affairs, and the Federal Reserve to name but a few.
      In spiritual circles the Catholic Church in many places and times has fit your description, but to make a sweeping generalization like you have is wrong. My father is a Christian minister, a loving and peaceful man. He doesn't have a God complex.

    2. my point is valid - no person knows a devine being better than another - you could spend your life reading "holly" books and never know anymore than anyone else on the planet, that has ever lived, about a devine being. I know a lot of loving and peaceful people that don't feel the need to direct of group of people into a special way of thinking or acting. I consider myself one. I'm sure your father believes he knows his god and what his god wants from him and of course others - so that said - he is playing a god.

      Has he ever said -
      "I am doing gods work"
      - probably - then he is playing god.

    3. Your name...interesting... according to Wikipedia, 'E pluribus unum', never codified by law, WAS considered a de facto motto of the United States until 1956 when the United States Congress passed an act adopting "In God We Trust" as the official motto.
      You think a humanist sentiment, 'e pluribus unum', speaks as the USA motto, and yet it's actually a God based one. How fitting!

      "no person knows a devine person better than another"

      - How do YOU know? Are you God? Who are you to say what another person knows or has been told to them? Do I call you a liar because your friend tells you something? Why would I arbitrarily do that? Is it because I 'know' he didn't speak to you, or is it because I might be afraid of what he said to you?

      "I know a lot of loving and peaceful people that don't feel the need to direct of group of people into a special way of thinking or acting. I consider myself one."

      - What if the house were on fire at night? Would you wake everyone up and tell them, and suggest 'a special way of acting'? You can't fault others for sharing their faith, it's not a sickness, and you are not morally superior for refraining. Regardless of whether they are right or wrong, you should thank them for caring about you. Indifference is the worst way to treat someone else. (Oddly, it's a big reason why so many gladly suffer at the hands of others.)

      "Has he ever said -
      "I am doing gods work"
      - probably - then he is playing god."

      You have a boss presumably, and you do his work. You don't think you're the boss because you are working with him and he tells you things, unless you're deluded. Are you with me here? Any sane person recognizes God as a separate entity.

      Implying you know the hidden thoughts in a man's mind, that's a pretty god-like assertion to make. You should reconsider that stance.

    4. Motto - E Pluribus Unum - "From Many, One"
      1776 First used on the seal of the U.S.A ( familiar date don't you think)
      1782 Accepted by Congress

      1956 Changed by Congress based on FEAR over communism - we sold out our principles way too easily, all in the 50's.
      1954 "Under god" added to pledge
      1950's "so help me god" added to oaths - as optional - there is admittedly conflicting data (facts)on this one, not the ones above.

      Not a single reference to a god or jesus or any kind of divine being in the Constitution, not a word, go ahead read it; please.
      Declaration of Independence - only references to a deistic divine being ( " Natures god" " Providence" "supreme judge of the world"- not jesus etc. ) go ahead read it; please.

      From 1776 to 1956 ( 180 years) our motto was in keeping with our non-religious form of government and everyone's rights were protected.
      From 1956 to 2012 (56 years) or mottos was changed - unconstitutionally - to one groups view of reality - seems we are repeating the errors that Europe underwent the last 1500 years.

      So we went from an all inclusive motto, to be proud of to an exclusive, devicsive motto that we can not be proud of - I mean ALL of us.

      No - you guessed it, I am not a god and don't pretend to be or to know a god that other people don't know. If someone says "I just had a conversation with Bugs Bunny and he told me to spread the word."
      We would all questions their sanity, no matter how nice their intentions. So substitute Bugs Bunny with jesus, allah, jehovah, buddha, Confucius, Thore, Zeus, the list is endless; or god.
      What exactly is the difference in saying one takes direction from bugs bunny or any of the others - i questions their sanity - i.e. their understanding of reality.
      If a house were on fire and I told people to get out or be cooked alive - yes that is a special way of acting - its called not dying. Now I could be either telling the truth or lying.
      I would get a way with the lie once for sure maybe twice but after a point of lying ( no evidence) people would stop believing me. Interesting that so many accept religious lies repeatedly, despite history.
      Indifference is the worst way to treat someone else. (oddly, its a big reason why so many gladly suffer at the hands of others.)
      Religious Indoctrination is the worst way to treat someone else. ( Historically, it is the big reason why so many gladly suffer at the hands of others)
      I do have a boss - a real person I interact with and others around me interact with. I can go with my boss to any place on the planet, any culture, any color of skin and any religious belief and they too will be able to see and interact with my boss with ease, without indoctrination, threat, fear, or persecution. My boss is a universal truth.

      Now replace "my boss" with whatever the name of your "god" is, it doesn't work, your god is not a universal truth, it does not work.
      "Any sane person recognizes god as a separate entity."
      Apparently the world is crazy - there is no agreement and never has been on the long list of gods.
      So again - I questions their sanity - i.e. their understanding of reality.
      I never implyed to know the thoughts of another. Thats imposible without having a dialog and or watching their behaviors.
      But I do know, based on evidence, an understanding of all peoples of this world, the history of this world and its peoples; that humans have no universal truth when they claim to have knowledge of a god.

      "No person knows a divine being better than another" - this is a universal truth.

      Anyone that claims to is playing god and is delusional.

      Thanks for the dialog!

    5. Religious indoctrination of young people too susceptible to the influences surrounding them and too ignorant and green to be able to assess the facts is tantamount to child molestation.

    6. (Edited by a moderator)

      - What does this mean exactly? Just curious. I don't see any of my post censored.

    7. @Derek,
      Not censored, we probably just picked up the empty white space at the bottom of your post.

    8. How come your "like" are still not identified?
      I suspect you are giving them. Just asking.

  69. A documentary that introduces you to synthetic biology, basically taking biological parts from other species and creating things with it. The innovation presented is quite amazing and opens a new world of possibilities for you to think about.
    This doco makes me feel nervous about the dangers and yet excited about the new possibilities.
    Typical BBC entertainment :)

  70. great doc with some very interesting facts and ideas. well worth watching. the BBC seems to make the best docs