DailyTech - Stem Cell Fraudster Hwang Unknowingly Made Real Breakthrough

Submit News

Science Stem Cell Fraudster Hwang Unknowingly Made Real Breakthrough
Wolfgang Hansson (Blog) - August 3, 2007 6:04 PM

E-mail

del.icio.us

77 comment(s) - last by eyebeeemmpawn.. on Aug 10 at 10:14 AM

Dr. Woo Suk Hwang's cloning scandal may have accidentally unveiled a different breakthrough.

Woo Suk Hwang, discredited for falsifying stem cell research, actually made important breakthrough

Last year a team of South Korean scientists, lead by Dr. Woo Suk Hwang claimed ground breaking advances in human cloned stem cell research. Later his work was discredited as being falsified.

Dr. Woo Suk Hwang claimed to have cloned human embryos and further claimed he was able to extract stem cells from them. After his work was discredited Hwang was fired from Seoul National University.

It now seems that Dr. Hwang and his team may have made an even more remarkable breakthrough, without even realizing it. At the Harvard Stem Cell Institute researchers looking at Hwang’s data found the cells were from a different type of embryo.

The genetic fingerprint of the cells tells researchers that the stem cells were from embryos produced by what is called “virgin birth” or parthenogenesis, occurring when eggs are stimulated into embryos without being fertilized by sperm. This feat has been achieved in animals, but before Hwang it had never been done in humans.

Dr. George Daley told the BBC, "Unfortunately at the time they published their work they did not know what they had done so they had mistakenly isolated these parthenogenic embryonic stem cells, and yet misrepresented them as true clones.”

Professor Azim Surani, from the University of Cambridge, says that Hwang’s unwitting discovery is potentially more important than the discovery he falsified.

Comments

Threshold

Username
Password
remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

well...

By petro on 8/3/2007 10:03:35 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
produced by what is called “virgin birth” or parthenogenesis, occurring when eggs are stimulated into embryos without being fertilized by sperm. This feat has been achieved in animals, but before Hwang it had never been done in humans.

Except when Jesus was concieved. hah

RE: well...

By Gul Westfale on 8/3/07, Rating: -1

RE: well...

By GlassHouse69 on 8/4/07, Rating: 0

RE: well...

By DRMichael on 8/4/2007 1:37:59 AM , Rating: 1

To: Gul Westfale
The ignorance displayed by your posting is not seen by the fact that you would site a source as unreliable and as far from scholarly as wikipedia; that's understood. Rather it comes from your lack of maturity in the realm of understanding social interactions. Far be it from me to point out your flaw. I'll leave it to you to either determine your faux pas, or continue to live in your blissful ignorance. I suspect a wrathful reply to this post would indicate you've chosen that later.

Parent

RE: well...

By Gul Westfale on 8/4/07, Rating: -1

By Gul Westfale on 8/4/2007 1:55:00 AM , Rating: -1

i think your chosing such a condescending tone shows that you have absolutely no respect of what other people might believe in; you are quite possibly one of those narrow-minded individuals who stubbornly believe in their own little truths without seeing the world around them.

the article i linked to from wikipedia is merely a confirmation of what is common knowledge, that a woman can engage in sex without rupturing the hymen. ask any doctor, and they will tell you the same.

furthermore i can only guess that i have hit a nerve with you and the guy above you because i pointed out that this might explain mary's virgin birth of jesus. i am correct there, it might indeed be an explanation. then again it might not; but i'm not going to attack any of you here for believing that. i'm neither a religious freak nor a non-believer; i'm merely a person who chooses to use the brain that either god or nature has given me- not doing so would be heresy, no?

so when you see a problem and then find two solutions, one logical and the other one forcing you to believe in something that has never been proven to exist, which solution do you think is right?

furthermore, we do not actually know whether mary was indeed a virgin; the bible was written not by god or jesus but by a bunch of greeks well after jesus died; and such embellishments (virgin birth, born on a particularly cold night, shooting star, etc etc) are a common feature in many stories concerning kings, religious figures, and other leaders. to this day every arab monarch claims to be descended from the prophet mohammed, though that is rather unlikely. of course a muslim might still choose to believe that, but i don't.

and even if a god existed (which, given various events in our history, i rather doubt) i still would not believe in any church; because churches are not the work of god but the work of men. and how can one believe in that church that hides child rapists from thje police, tells us that women and gays are inferior, and has an old nazi as its chief?

if you do believe in the existence of some higher creature than ourselves, please do. the universe is big, there might well be someone out there. but pardon me if i don't drink from your cup of tea.

Parent

RE: well...

By Gul Westfale on 8/4/07, Rating: -1

RE: well...

By Rockjock51 on 8/4/2007 2:31:32 AM , Rating: 5

What he said had nothing to do with God or Jesus. Try again.

Parent

RE: well...

By General Disturbance on 8/4/07, Rating: -1

RE: well...

By DRMichael on 8/4/2007 3:04:01 AM , Rating: 3

To put it in your words: I’m not asking you to drink from my cup of tea, or anyone else’s for that matter. However, I would request that you stop spitting into other peoples cups’ of tea. Or in my country, that would be coffee.

Your initial post stated: “actually virgin birth is possible without using myths from the bible…”

By turning an entire religion into a “myth”, I would consider that to be metaphorically spitting into other peoples cups’ of tea. In fact, I might go so far as to consider a statement as such as coming from “one of those narrow-minded individuals who stubbornly believe in their own little truths” as you so eloquently stated.

However, it was the second post that made everyone else aware that you ARE one of those narrow-minded individuals. By attacking the ideas that you disagree with; i.e. God, Church, and Arab Monarchs, you have revealed your prejudices. In all honesty, this probably stems from continuously being in the minority of society throughout your life. I hope you seek real honest help.

And one more thing: Your reply confirms not only my preliminary thoughts on your social skills, but also your lack of education. English is my mother tongue; it’s just not the Queens English. The spelling is correct. Unfortunately I can’t say the same for yours.

Parent

RE: well...

By General Disturbance on 8/4/07, Rating: -1

By General Disturbance on 8/4/2007 3:27:41 AM , Rating: -1

What the heck is all this tea talk? Or must you hide behind analogies so loose in comparison such as to no longer make sense?

"By turning an entire religion into a “myth”, I would consider that to be metaphorically spitting into other peoples cups’ of tea. In fact, I might go so far as to consider a statement as such as coming from “one of those narrow-minded individuals who stubbornly believe in their own little truths” as you so eloquently stated."

You are such a prima donna! My god! haha...wow! We can all take statements completely out of context and blow them up to mean something WE WANT IT to mean so that we can get all pissy, and you, obviously, do it extremely well! Congrats! Did you get bullied at school today or something? Go play WoW then with all your other little nerd losers, and have a huge piss-in-each-others-cornflakes contest.

You know what I consider metaphorically? (lol) I find your inability to understand simple concepts, and connections in modern day science to historical events and their possible explanation, as obvious evidence that you are extremely young, and as such, stupid. I know you can't help it, you just need to grow up before you can appreciate these more subtle implications...well, if you even understand what I mean right now, which, you quite likely, must not.

"In all honesty, this probably stems from continuously being in the minority of society throughout your life. I hope you seek real honest help."

ROFL!!!!! Where is this stuff coming from? It is hilarious! All from a few simple, completely legitimate observations by the guy.

"being in the minority of society throughout your life. I hope you seek real honest help."

Well there is no need to be racist DrM! I don't know which English-speaking country you are from, but any of the ones I know have strict laws against racism! There is nothing wrong with being a minority, and the sooner you realize that the sooner minorities will stop being suppressed by you white overlords. I can't believe you are using racist arguments to try to, what, say that virgin hymens always break, instead of only 57% of the time?

Wow.

Parent

RE: well...

By Operator911 on 8/4/2007 3:46:36 AM , Rating: 2

What's your problem!? Are you projecting your own troubles or something? Give the name calling a break. Or go back to myspace or whatever you kids are blogging on.

Parent

RE: well...

By desertvet on 8/4/2007 3:56:21 AM , Rating: 3

Hey wannabe. You have no freakin idea what your talking about. Refering to someone in the minority has nothing to do with racism. Just because you aint got a daddy and your mama and sisters outnumber you don't make them racist. You better turn out that light.

Parent

RE: well...

By General Disturbance on 8/4/07, Rating: -1

RE: well...

By ZmaxDP on 8/6/2007 3:51:15 PM , Rating: 1

Seriously, has anyone here heard of something called satire?

Read the whole post and you'll notice the following:
"We can all take statements completely out of context and blow them up to mean something WE WANT IT to mean so that we can get all pissy, and you, obviously, do it extremely well!"

Then, at the end you'll notice a satirical example of doing just that! If you're thinking: "God, that guy must have been dumb to think the other guy was talking about racial minorities" you might also consider that said guy may have gotten that concept too, and made fun of it instead...

Parent

RE: well...

By icemansims on 8/4/2007 3:33:50 AM , Rating: 3

Isn't that all it is really? Religion I mean. Myths are simply religious stories, no different than those of the bible. What we consider Classical myths are simply those religious stories of a religion that died out. They really aren't any different than those Christianity demands you accept as truth. To claim otherwise is rather hypocritical.

Parent

RE: well...

By Operator911 on 8/4/2007 3:40:59 AM , Rating: 2

The difference is that your degrading someones beliefs. Not cool.

Parent

RE: well...

By NT78stonewobble on 8/5/2007 9:48:20 AM , Rating: 2

Well I do think that when eg. religions tries to "force" people to act in certain ways they really really needs to be questioned.

And about degrading others beliefs? So you take people with tinfoil hats seriously?

Parent

RE: well...

By eyebeeemmpawn on 8/10/2007 10:14:25 AM , Rating: 2

If they were true beliefs, why the concern for the opinions of others? Would it reaffirm your faith if everyone on here was saying the same, positive things about your religion? That's why there are religious websites. This is DailyTECH, not Warm-cuddly-religious-word-of-the-day.com

Just because someone believes in something does not mean that that someone else cannot express their contradicting opinion. Believe what you choose to believe, try growing a thicker skin, and keep your religion out of our government!

Parent

RE: well...

By dluther on 8/4/2007 8:36:22 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
However, I would request that you stop spitting into other peoples cups’ of tea.

I think if you had stopped there, your point would have had a much greater impact, because it's simple, concise, and salient.

Remember that faith is predicated upon the simple fact that the the existence of the deity in question can never be proven nor disproven.

Parent

RE: well...

By desertvet on 8/4/07, Rating: -1

RE: well...

By General Disturbance on 8/4/07, Rating: -1

By General Disturbance on 8/4/2007 3:00:05 AM , Rating: -1

Hey DrMichael,
You moron, did you even bother to check the references at the bottom of the wiki article? You obviously have no formal scientific training because if you did, that would be the first thing even a first year undergraduate, hell high school student, would do. Let me ask you: do you even know how to look up a reference? I mean they are all right there...for examples:
"(2002) in Kurman, Robert J.: Blaustein's Pathology of the Female Genital Tract, 5th edition, New York: Springer-Verlag, 160. "
"Chang, Lisbeth and Muram, David. (2002) "Pediatric & Adolescent Gynecology" in DeCherney, Alan H. and Nathan, Lauren. Current Obstetric & Gynecological Diagnosis & Treatment, 9th edition, McGraw-Hill, 598-602."
"Perlman, Sally E.; Nakajima, Steven T. and Hertweck, S. Paige (2004). Clinical protocols in pediatric and adolescent gynecology. Parthenon, 131. "

Those 3 are the most relevant ones...did you read them? No?? REALLY? You fucking idiot.

"Far be it from me to point out your flaw"

No, really DrM, we would like you to point it out. Please, point out the flaw, describe it, break it down for us. To what ignorance are you referring? Or are you just a fucking jack-ass kid with NO idea? I see a major flaw in your post kid, because I know you didn't read the references to the wiki, which makes your post pure BS. The stats he lists are totally legit, (you've obviously never had sex with a virgin before, or you would know this first hand...if you've ever had sex at all). And so there is a clear link to the biblical story of Mary and Jesus, and it was enlightening for him to point it out.

Son, go piss in someone else's cornflakes, you're obviously out of your league here.

Parent

RE: well...

By DRMichael on 8/4/2007 3:12:18 AM , Rating: 1

Go get you GED and maybe they'll let you join the Salvation Army general. Wikipedia is the dropouts source for information. Unfortunately, anyone can post "FACTS" on that site. Do some research before wasting the few brain cells you have left.

Parent

RE: well...

By carsoncity on 8/4/2007 3:20:37 AM , Rating: 2

How do people who use Wiki ever find this site anyway?

Parent

RE: well...

By General Disturbance on 8/4/07, Rating: -1

RE: well...

By Operator911 on 8/4/2007 3:38:44 AM , Rating: 2

Dude, drmichael is right. Wikipedia is about equivalent to the National Enquirer.

Parent

RE: well...

By General Disturbance on 8/4/2007 3:50:31 AM , Rating: 1

Well, I am an astrophysicist, and I have studied quantum mechanics, and tonight I felt like refreshing my knowledge on tau neutrinos.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tau_neutrino

If you actually have a functioning fucking brain cell, read the article and please, point out the flaw, show me where it's wrong.

I'm not saying wiki is flawless, but I AM saying that there is quite a bit on there that is completely true and legitimate, and if you really want to prove it to yourself READ THE FUCKING REFERENCES YOU DIM WIT!

Here they are, for the tau neutrino:

* Super-Kamiokande. Super-Kamiokande at UC Irvine. Retrieved on July 14, 2003.
* G. A. Tammann, F. K. Thielemann, D. Trautmann (2003). Opening new windows in observing the Universe (English). Europhysics News. Retrieved on 2006-06-08.
* Bahcall, John N. (1989). Neutrino Astrophysics. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-35113-8.
* Griffiths, David J. (1987). Introduction to Elementary Particles. Wiley, John & Sons, Inc. ISBN 0-471-60386-4.
* Perkins, Donald H. (1999). Introduction to High Energy Physics. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-62196-8.
* Povh, Bogdan (1995). Particles and Nuclei: An Introduction to the Physical Concepts. Springer-Verlag. ISBN 0-387-59439-6.
* Tipler, Paul; Llewellyn, Ralph (2002). Modern Physics (4th ed.). W. H. Freeman. ISBN 0-7167-4345-0.
* R. N. Mohapatra et al. (APS neutrino theory working group) (2005). "Theory of neutrinos: a white paper". preprint. arXiv:hep-ph/0510213
* A. Goobar, S. Hannestad, E. Mörtsell and H. Tu (2006). "A new bound on the neutrino mass from the SDSS baryon acoustic peak". JCAP 06: 019. arXiv:astro-ph/0602155

Have you read any of these? I didn't think so. So how in the F can you say you can't trust wiki? Maybe you've looked up goatse one too many times? There's more than that on wiki.

Here's another of my favorites:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun

Again, read the article, and point out the flaw, and show me the comparison to the enquirer.

Parent

RE: well...

By Operator911 on 8/4/2007 4:01:25 AM , Rating: 1

Ok Mr.Spock,
You speak well for a astrophysicist. Hope that degree doesn't require your communication skills.

Parent

RE: well...

By Ardan on 8/5/2007 2:19:20 AM , Rating: 2

LOL No kidding, man!

Parent

RE: well...

By BiuTech on 8/6/2007 12:49:02 PM , Rating: 3

I think he just put the "Ass" in astrophysicist.

Parent

RE: well...

By timmiser on 8/4/2007 3:58:33 AM , Rating: 3

"Wikipedia is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world can write anything they want about any subject, so you know you are getting the best possible information."

-Michael Scott

Parent

RE: well...

By Operator911 on 8/4/2007 4:03:29 AM , Rating: 3

Well said.

Parent

RE: well...

By General Disturbance on 8/4/07, Rating: -1

By General Disturbance on 8/4/2007 4:08:34 AM , Rating: -1

Well...I guess it takes someone already knowledgeable about science to tell whether what they read is accurate or not. I certainly don't use wiki for references in any published articles, but it is fine for general knowledge research in the physical sciences, and as I have pointed out, you can check the references section for the primary sources. This is a better approach than rejecting without thought anything you don't want to hear.

But it was certainly fine to reference it here, in the way Gul originally did. It's not like we're a fucking publication review committee! If you want to reject it, then GO FIND THE SOURCE INFORMATION AND PROVE IT! The onus is on you, because most science wiki articles represent publicly known and publicly accepted knowledge. If you want to reject it, you need to back yourself up, which, of course, none of these losers can do. Other than by saying "waaahhhhhnnn its like the enquirer...wwaaaahhhhhnnnnn"

Parent

RE: well...

By Hare on 8/4/2007 4:28:54 AM , Rating: 2

You need to skip a few words every now and then and your post ratings wont immediately go down. The system automatically down rates posts that contain certain words. I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.

And yes, wikipedia is quite reliable just like you said. (See my post below).

Parent

RE: well...

By Hare on 8/4/2007 4:16:28 AM , Rating: 4

You are actually wrong.

"The free online resource Wikipedia is about as accurate on science as the Encyclopedia Britannica, a study shows."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm

The whole idea with Wikipedia (yes, I have a brain, a university degree and even a scientific article or two) is that I can quickly skim through information BUT if I wan't solid scientifical facts I'll look at the references . If there are peer reviewed reference studies it's a good idea to pick one and use it to find facts . Wikipedia is quite reliable and if you wan't assurance please look at the references.

Parent

RE: well...

By Anonimous on 8/4/07, Rating: 0

RE: well...

By desertvet on 8/4/07, Rating: -1

RE: well...

By Hare on 8/4/2007 4:19:03 AM , Rating: 2

Having a bad day? Could you just try not to post messages that contain nothing but personal attacks. I mean what do you get out of your message?

Please, kindly, think before posting. Thanks.

Parent

RE: well...

By Gul Westfale on 8/4/2007 8:06:45 AM , Rating: 1

quote:
To: Gul Westfale
The ignorance displayed by your posting is not seen by the fact that you would site a source as unreliable and as far from scholarly as wikipedia; that's understood. Rather it comes from your lack of maturity in the realm of understanding social interactions. Far be it from me to point out your flaw. I'll leave it to you to either determine your faux pas, or continue to live in your blissful ignorance. I suspect a wrathful reply to this post would indicate you've chosen that later.

well since you said there are no spelling mistakes, mr englishman...

site should be cite
later should be latter

i have to say that reading (and re-reading) your post cracks me up; rarely have i seen such an arrogant tone (and yet so little actual content) on a message board. "i will leave it to you to determine your faux pas" hahahahah!

Parent

RE: well...

By DRMichael on 8/4/2007 10:44:15 AM , Rating: 2

I stand corrected on my grammer for the word "Cite". I can admit when I'm wrong. However, I see no reply to facts of the LATTER (yes IT IS correct) post where you have been cited for your prejudices and narrow-minded views. If you took the original post as condescending, it was in response to your attack on someone's beliefs (the "myth" comment). Fortunately for you, the Christian community is not as quick to issue a fatwa to have you beheaded for such comments.

If you intend to defend open-mindedness and respect for all, you should impose some self censorship.

Parent

RE: well...

By Gul Westfale on 8/4/2007 6:47:11 PM , Rating: 2

i did not believe that anyone with half a brain could take offense from my use of the term "myth", since it IS a myth. if it were fact it would not require faith to believe in. if you truly do believe in the bible then you should be comfortable enough in your beliefs for others to disagree with them without immediately thinking that all of christianity is under attack.

also, i thought that the original poster with this comment was joking, and i wanted to suggest another possibility- pissing people off was not my intent. i never thought that anyone would take it all so damn seriously.

i do however feel that if we are to have a discussion then my use of the word "myth" should be permitted when christians are permitted to use the word "fact".

as far as self-censorship goes, i can assure you that i did hold back a lot- i guess if you really knew how i feel about organised religion in general you just might declare a fatwa on me :)

your fatwa comment does show that you yourself deeply misunderstand muslims, or at least you grossly generalise here that all muslims are as quick to jump the gun as the ayatollahs and their followers.

perhaps we should all just take a deep breath and call it a day.

one more item: my correcting your grammar (with 2 a's) was a bit inappropriate i guess. it was late last night and i was tired; i'm not usually a spelling nazi.

Parent

RE: well...

By DRMichael on 8/4/2007 11:48:27 PM , Rating: 3

At least you give me credit for having half a brain. My wife, on the other hand sometimes asks if I have lost my mind. :)

Fair enough. While I may still disagree with your justification for calling the bible a myth (perhaps THEORY would be a more appropriate and, dare I say it, politically correct word), my words and 'tone' were at times inappropriate as well.

And for the record: I believe in Christ and I do have a problem with some aspects of organized religion.

Parent

RE: well...

By Gul Westfale on 8/5/2007 12:46:43 AM , Rating: 2

well then let's leave it that, shall we?

and in a politically correct way: may the possibly multi-ethnic gender non-specific entity that you may or may not believe in bless you, if that is what you wish :)

at least we had a decent argument. until next time.

Parent

RE: well...

By Fritzr on 8/5/2007 5:49:00 AM , Rating: 2

The difference between Holy writ and Myth is based solely on the beliefs of the person deciding.

To a Christian the Christian Bible is the Word of God and is not a myth. To this same Christian, the Holy Books of Hinduism are the writings of a false religion and therefore the stories in them are Myth.

To a Hindu the Christian Bible is the writing of a false religion and is a myth. To this same Hindu, the Holy Books of Hinduism are the writings of the true religion and therefore the stories in them are Religious Truth.

Religious belief is not fact. Fundamentalist believers of all religions will cite their Faith as reasonable grounds for disbelieving scientifically proven facts. Religious believers are allowed to disbelieve repeatable experiments. Just don't be surprised when the physical laws that fail to follow religious law don't mend their ways.

If you wish to cite the Holy Writ of your religion, be welcome to do so. However when the subject is the physical observation of repeatable experiments be prepared to disbelieve reality.

I am a Christian. I am also willing to believe that when a document compiled and printed by man disagrees with the Universe created by God, that God's creation is probably more likely to be correct.

Parent

RE: well...

By Screwballl on 8/5/2007 3:03:26 AM , Rating: 2

Have you ever seen or held 1 billion dollars? If not then how do you know it exists? It must be a "myth"... since you have the "belief" that it exists, it must be a myth.

Just because you cannot see or feel or hear or smell something, does not mean that it does not exist and is a "myth".
Jesus was a real man that walked the earth. Were you alive at that time to get the "facts"? So can you disprove it?
Of course not because your "myth" is also your "belief" based on lack of knowledge of human history. Every character in the Bible has at some point also coincided or had contact with other known characters seen in literature and human history.
Facts are based on knowledge using information available at the time but are subject to change once proven otherwise. Much of the bible has been proven as fact. The earth being flat in the 1600s was a fact. This meant a round earth was a myth because a few believed in it. The solar system revolved around the Earth... was a fact until it was officially proven otherwise.
I hope you see my point, that one mans myth is another mans fact.
Sorry for the rambling it is late and just got on a roll.

and to this Dr guy, he has 6 posts all in this single story, most of them voted down. Based on the content I read, I see him as a high school student who has a family member in the medical profession but has never studied the facts to get a straight story so chimed in and gave different wrong assessments on something he has no first hand knowledge about. I do not either so I will not directly comment on the story.

Parent

RE: well...

By Operator911 on 8/5/2007 9:45:56 AM , Rating: 3

That's funny. I've never heard of the 'Big Bang Myth', 'Myth of Evolution', or 'Quantum Myth'. They're all considered theories aren't they? Sounds to me that drmicheal has a point. As for your theory or myth of this guy having a family member in the medical background, he never once commented on the science of the article. He had his feathers in an uproar over someone refering to the Bible as a myth.

Parent

RE: well...

By SlyNine on 8/5/2007 10:22:58 AM , Rating: 2

I have never heard of the myth of creation either, the word he should have used theory. But he belives it to be a myth, I think that myth is something that is disproved and since it has not be disproved what he said was incorrect.

Parent

RE: well...

By Darkskypoet on 8/5/2007 1:33:26 PM , Rating: 1

I have. In fact many, many, many!!! different cultures / religions / ethnic groups have their own creation "myths". Surprise, surprise; they are all different. Some are similar, true, but did god create the earth in 7 days, and really create all of female human kind from Adam's Rib? Or did animals keep diving into the water to find clay to add to a turtles back to create the earth? Or....

I for one agree with the poster using the word myth. Simply as I wish to treat ALL religions equally, and they can't really be ALL right, thusly I choose to see them ALL as myth.

By utilizing the term myth, one does not automatically assume they are all fallacious. Simply that they are all stories at this point in time. Further, most of us here understand how IMPORTANT these stories are to so many around the world. However, there are also many of us who think that those who take tribal myth and legend as actual literal truth probably shouldn't. Instead, these stories may have some truths in them, and perhaps even some important lessons about humanities; temptations, problems, solutions, morals, vices, and victories.

Fable, myth, legend, etc. may be seen by some as insult to their holy writ and doctrine. But, much like Mao's red book... Doctrine is created for a place and time and purpose.

In addition, please realize the ramifications of holding to BADLY translated english copies of the many thousands of these such myths that can be found in our english versions of said religious doctrine. Unless you sir / ma'am can read ancient Aramaic, Ancient Greek, Latin, or the many other dead languages that originally held this doctrine, and on top of that understand the social context that each such present day myth was written in (at the time of its writing): I would submit that you do not even know if you are reading what was written , or are reading an opportunists view of what would gain said movement what it wanted / needed.

As an aside, myth is more correct then theory as you are taking a traditional story as literal truth, and not making suppositions based on evidence. Evolution is considered a theory, creationism would be a myth. Also, a myth in no way has to be something that is disproved.

Myth from google "define:myth":

# a traditional story accepted as history; serves to explain the world view of a people
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

# A myth is often thought to be a lesson in story form which has deep explanatory or symbolic resonance for preliterate cultures, who preserve and cherish the wisdom of their elders through oral traditions by the use of skilled story tellers.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth

# a common or shared historical experience
oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth370/gloss.html

# Stories that explain the origins of current phenomena. They may be believed literally or figuratively, or as metaphorically moral truths about the workings of the world.
www.lpb.org/programs/swappingstories/glossary.htm l

Parent

RE: well...

By Gul Westfale on 8/5/2007 3:59:43 PM , Rating: 2

the bible is neither a theory nor a myth, because it DOES exist. every bookstore has a few copies. what i was referring to as a "myth" was mary's virgin birth. it is not a theory either because nobody thinks it might have happened; it is a myth because the bible claims it to be fact while we today- 2000 years later- have no way of proving it.

the big bang on the other hand is a theory, not a myth because while we cannot prove it we are not relying on an old story- there are scientists who use physics, logic, and a bigger computer than mine to figure this stuff out. nonetheless, the big bang has never been proven (not yet, and maybe never) to have actually occured; and so it too must be seen as (educated) speculation, not fact (and i say that knowing that the big bang seems the most likely explanation for the creation of our universe. accent on "seems".)

myth by the way is not something that has been proven to be untrue, but merely something that is unprovable. it may well be true to some; not so to others.
if i may point to a wikipedia article again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_mytholog...

one more thing: i am german, and therefore my choice of exact words is sometimes a bit different from what an english speaker would have used; by using "myth" i did not want to insult anyone's personal beliefs. i hope we can let this long long thread die now... :)

Parent

RE: well...

By seekerofknowledge on 8/5/2007 8:02:18 PM , Rating: 5

A history book that I have claims that nearly 6 million jews perished during what it refers to as the holocaust. Yet in some countries schools refer to the holocaust as a myth.

Additionally, my history book states that in 1969 two men named Edwin Aldrin and Neil Armstrong landed on the moon. There are pictures included with the text. Yet my great-grandmother still believes that it was all done in a Hollywood studio.

Finally, I vaguely remember my philosophy 101 professor telling us that we really can't prove anything around us truly exists. I remember saying 'but I can sit in this chair and touch that table so they must exist'. My professor replied something to the affect of 'your mind could simply be creating this entire environment around you, the only thing that you can prove is that because you can think then you must surely exist'. Je pense, donc je suis - I think, therefore I am. This famous line from the philosopher Descartes pretty much sums it up I believe.

As for the word MYTH, used to propogate this unusually long thread, I believe it holds the conotation of a falsehood.

Parent

RE: well...

By SlyNine on 8/5/2007 10:18:06 AM , Rating: 2

It was never fact because it was never proven, It was the truth that the world was round even back then. Hence the differences between the word truth and the word fact.

A fact shouldn't ever be disproved, or it is not a fact.

Parent

RE: well...

By NT78stonewobble on 8/5/2007 9:57:17 AM , Rating: 2

"If you intend to defend open-mindedness and respect for all, you should impose some self censorship. "

Well that's not quite true...

Being forced into self censorship is also infringing on the whole free speech issue.

IMHO, every religion, nation and organisation needs criticism.

Offcourse we do need laws in place to protect any individual from slander and what else.

PS. And why would any religiou even wan't believers that are either a) not informed enough to make a conscient choice to believe or b) bullied into this or that religion?

Parent

RE: well...

By Darkskypoet on 8/5/2007 2:07:44 PM , Rating: 2

Religions are movements / nations of ideological bindings... more members mean more soldiers. Look into history, so many wars / battles have been fought by said movements / nations; in each the more poor suckers you have tied to your doctrine, the more of these men and woman that will kill / die for their 'god' (whether to go straight to heaven to be saved / have a better existence then that in the city of men / be surrounded by virgins) the better chance of winning the war.

Christian / catholic / etc movements many times throughout history had used the notion of needing to be saved backed up with the simply horrible living conditions of the majority in those ages; to convince people of the need to go to the 'true' church, follow the priests words, and ultimately follow those who said fight and die, or forcibly convert the 'heathens'.

A parallel can be found today very simply and easily. What president of the united states cares that his / her people make an informed decision on whom to vote for? What purpose would this serve any of the candidates? They want to use marketing, force, bribes, etc. to get as many as possible to line up and support him / her.

Real intelligence and questioning of the status quo tends to be inconvenient. Apathy in fact is for some the greatest weapon in a political contest these days. If it reduces the numbers that you have to convince to go onto your side so that you can 'save' them (from terrorism, from corruption, from pinko communism, etc) then it makes it much simpler to focus and sharpen your weapons of media coercion to the segments of people left over.

Battling for hearts and minds is not simply an exercise in Iraq or Afghanistan, it is very truly going on here every day. In a true contest of skills, abilities, and who might best run your country, or myne; does it really matter that Barak Obama may have been taught in a Muslim school and is not a WASP? Or that Hillary is female? Or that Juliani (sp?) divorced a few more times then average? No. To an informed and intelligent electorate those might take a far less important place then perhaps what they do now that the majority of the voting population in the United States has essentially been turned into opposing "what did Lindsay do this week" mobs.

To exercise simplistic power, you make people afraid of something, and then control what they are afraid of, you push a belief system and hold all those outside of it as wrong, and evil. You demonize portions of those who also seek power and destroy their image, make them seem weak, or overtly militaristic.

I agree with stonewobble in that all artificial orgs that humans have managed to come up with (nations, states, religions, etc) require criticism. However, religions like any other sort of governing body only wants so much intelligence in the populace so that they have good warriors, or a competitive economy. rarely do these groups want their people to be able to challenge their authority, power, or vision of how the world / universe is. No, I think if possible they would want the best engineers, and the most pliant political minds... At least... the ones that disagree with the party leadership.

Parent

RE: well...

By SilthDraeth on 8/6/2007 9:42:24 AM , Rating: 4

I just want to say that even if a chick can get pregnant without rupturing her hymen, that does not mean she is still a virgin.

Everything else you blokes are arguing about is a moot point.

Parent

RE: well...

By rtrski on 8/6/2007 11:43:18 AM , Rating: 2

Wow, all this bleating about how he 'insulted' religion calling it a myth, while ignoring the more obvious flaw in his 'reasoning'. Don't you think he's pulled a Clintonian definition to call a woman who has had sexual intercourse - regardless of whether it didn't actually rupture the hymen - a virgin?

Parent

RE: well...

By SilthDraeth on 8/6/2007 12:51:18 PM , Rating: 2

I agree, read my post above yours.

Parent

I think that he was discredited too soon...

By Das Capitolin on 8/3/2007 9:10:42 PM , Rating: 5

Dr. Woo Suk Hwang obviously isn't a fraud, since he held the capacity to lead a research team, so it is disappointing that the media would discredit him and trash his name. Claiming findings that are later proven incorrect could have been many things, but the fact that they have now discovered that his work held more than originally thought, it appears the media just did a wash job on someone who was actually working towards a scientific goal. Don't hang the man for trying, especially when he did manage to yield usable work.

RE: I think that he was discredited too soon...

By Gul Westfale on 8/3/07, Rating: 0

RE: I think that he was discredited too soon...

By ButterFlyEffect78 on 8/4/2007 5:32:28 AM , Rating: 3

Its always the media. They are too busy brainwashing people. Never trust the TV. Use your own mind to solve something that just needs plain common sense and logic.

Parent

RE: I think that he was discredited too soon...

By Polynikes on 8/5/2007 11:51:38 PM , Rating: 3

Going by that logic, you should cancel your internet service, because the internet is infinitely worse than TV when it comes to dissemination of false information.

Parent

RE: I think that he was discredited too soon...

By iNGEN on 8/4/2007 11:07:48 AM , Rating: 3

Reading back through citations of Dr. Hwang's comments it appears he may have been deluded into thinking his claimed breakthrough was real. He may have been deluded by this breakthrough.

I can't see why people claim he falsified his research. It looks more like the classic "microscope phenomena". So busy trying to create a particular change he failed to realize a different, albiet equally significant, one.

Parent

RE: I think that he was discredited too soon...

By animedude on 8/5/2007 11:54:02 AM , Rating: 2

Atless now he doesn't have to go to jail.

Parent

RE: I think that he was discredited too soon...

By geddarkstorm on 8/8/2007 3:02:53 PM , Rating: 2

No, he submitted false data. As in, he made up data. I'm a biologist, so the story is well known to us. He lied straight out to the scientific community, and when his results couldn't be duplicated, they went back and interrogated the researchers to find out the important data in his "discovery" was totally made up and not real. This byproduct of his research is cool, and if he had just sat back and waited instead of falsifying things thinking he'd be shown true later, he would have made this wonderful discovery instead of ruining his career.

The media has nothing to do with it--making up numbers in a peer review article did.

Parent

im an accidental genius too!

By ryedizzel on 8/3/2007 7:57:52 PM , Rating: 3

eggs being stimulated into embryos without being fertilized by sperm? 3 weeks ago i kept telling my friend's wife that she will be having kids soon. 2 days ago my friend called me and said she was pregnant. i have discovered the secret to parthenogenesis!!!

RE: im an accidental genius too!

By Gul Westfale on 8/3/2007 7:59:43 PM , Rating: 5

or maybe you and your friend's wife have a lil secret?

Parent

RE: im an accidental genius too!

By The Boston Dangler on 8/3/2007 8:56:17 PM , Rating: 2

like the song says:

"Me and Mrs.Jones got our own thing goin' on..."

Parent

RE: im an accidental genius too!

By lumbergeek on 8/4/2007 2:59:00 AM , Rating: 2

the song goes "Me and Mrs, Jones. We got a thing goin' on"

Parent

das glueck ist mit den doofen

By Gul Westfale on 8/3/2007 7:59:02 PM , Rating: 2

a german saying meaning "luck is on the side of the stupid."

:)

RE: das glueck ist mit den doofen

By aurareturn on 8/3/2007 8:46:07 PM , Rating: 3

Too bad Woo Suk Hwang is probably smarter than all of us here.

Parent

RE: das glueck ist mit den doofen

By Gul Westfale on 8/3/2007 9:40:34 PM , Rating: 2

well it's not something you necessarily say to a stupid person, but about a stupid situation. also, if he actually thought hat his lies would be taken as fact by other scientists, without those scientists then trying to replicate his experiments, then he is indeed stupid.

Parent

Oh, noooooo!

By wiiz3rd on 8/3/2007 9:38:25 PM , Rating: 4

First my job became redundant. Soon I too will become redundant.

interesting

By Visual on 8/4/2007 8:39:14 AM , Rating: 2

this is quite curious...
of course, the embryos from this "virgin birth" would only have half the chromosome set from the mother, so the potential of abnormal development is quite high. this method will never be used for reproduction. but still, the discovery is definitely significant and will have some applications, at least in further research and experiments.

i don't quite understand how they could've confused this with a real cloning - if that was a honest mistake and not purposeful deceit.

RE: interesting

By geddarkstorm on 8/8/2007 3:06:04 PM , Rating: 2

He made up data that never happened, that's purposeful deceit.

But yes, only having one set of genes would most likely be totally lethal. After all, there are few if little genetic diseases involving a missing chromosome as usually the embryo dies early in development. Human chromosomes cross talk (like with X-chromosomal silencing) and both are needed for correct development--one extra is also as lethal or debilitating (down syndrome, cri-du-chat)

Parent