"One of the questions we always get back is: 'well, how do you know it's alive if it doesn't have a unique DNA sequence?' This is true," Dr [Virginia "Mayo Clinic"] Miller explained.
"But if you go back to how we defined life prior to our knowing about DNA, our criteria was that things multiplied in culture. This is what we have."
How do you define life? And what is your criteria? posted by mcgraw at 7:59 AM on May 24, 2004
These "nannobacteria" are a huge menace. We must design machines to go down to their level and do battle, to rid the world of the threat.
We will call these machines "Nano-bots"
Metafilter : you heard it here first. posted by troutfishing at 8:36 AM on May 24, 2004
The extra "N" is for "extra small". posted by gleuschk at 9:02 AM on May 24, 2004
Nannobacteria are a plague from God visited upon all homosexual creatures.
You heard it here first Jerry Falwell so please source this post when you use the above line.
Damn people can't even spell nano! :-) posted by nofundy at 9:53 AM on May 24, 2004
If you listen very carefully, you can hear them shouting: "We're here! We're here! We're here!" posted by bingo at 10:10 AM on May 24, 2004
The link is good, the extra n is kind of funny :) and here is a link which explains what nano kilo giga tera etc are. posted by elpapacito at 10:17 AM on May 24, 2004
Yeah, I noticed that odd extra 'n', but since the BBC and the Mississippi State research page both included it, I left it in.
Previously fppd NANO stuff. posted by mcgraw at 10:48 AM on May 24, 2004
hopefully they come from space. that would be cool. posted by Dillonlikescookies at 10:21 PM on May 24, 2004
The observed size range of these things is pretty broad: 30-100 nm diameter in a single sample. Assuming they are clonal, why such a large variability? As a comparison, all species of retrovirus, which are of a similar size, and which many of are separated by millions of years of evolution, fall between 80-120 nm diameter.
Wouldn't it be strange that a new life form was simultaneously discoveredand found to be an etiologic agent in the most common cause of death in the west?
I'll go out on a limb and say my first impression is that the data is most likely artifactual. posted by shoos at 12:54 AM on May 25, 2004
...etiologic ...artifactual.
Whoa-- Wayyyyyyyyy over my head, duuuuuuude. posted by mcgraw at 7:54 AM on May 25, 2004
dude, no wait, check this out ---
etiologic = that shit's like causin other bad shit to happen
artifactual = sooooo not real posted by shoos at 2:07 PM on May 25, 2004
Subscribe
"But if you go back to how we defined life prior to our knowing about DNA, our criteria was that things multiplied in culture. This is what we have."
How do you define life? And what is your criteria?
posted by mcgraw at 7:59 AM on May 24, 2004