If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Nano Werk)   6'4" DNA researchers with full heads of hair, muscular builds, sculpted jawlines and piercing blue eyes say that they've discovered a way to edit any DNA sequence at will   (nanowerk.com) divider line 158
    More: Interesting, DNA, nucleic acid sequence, researchers, animals and plants, Cell Biology, molecular biology, binding proteins, Janet  
•       •       •

10712 clicks; posted to Geek » on 27 Aug 2013 at 11:03 AM (33 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



158 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-27 02:06:13 PM
6'4"±1" seems to be the total dick height range.  Glad I stopped at 6'2".
 
2013-08-27 02:13:09 PM

Saiga410: OK but what if a blokes name is Jim or Steve, or Gary.  Why are people named Will only allowed this treatement?


Picard:  Fire at will!
Riker:  What the fu-
Worf phasers Riker out of existence; Picard looks shocked for a moment, then a small smile appears.
Picard:  Worf, we must communicate better, but accidents do happen.
 
2013-08-27 02:15:20 PM

bighairyguy: 6'4"±1" seems to be the total dick height range.  Glad I stopped at 6'2".



I'm 6'4" and I wear elevator shoes to get a few more inches.
 
2013-08-27 02:20:53 PM

doubled99: Big deal. I've been manipulating my DNA for years.


3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-08-27 02:21:09 PM

Cubicle Jockey: piperTom: Researchers are 6'4" (193 cm)?!? Why so tall?

Social benefits.
Perceived alpha status.
It is the reason we elect tall people as president and to corporate boardrooms.
Researchers studying dating sites tweaked fake male profiles to see what factors generated the most positive responses. Taking generic person X, they found that adding 2 inches to his stated height had the same effect as giving him $50,000 in stated additional income. Chicks like tall guys.


Which has always made me wonder if it's genuinely attractive to be tall, or if women intrinsically desire some level of 'inferiority' to their chosen mate.  You see women dating men shorter than themselves, worse educated than themselves, etc. much less frequently than the alternative.  If it were just a matter of success and wealth and education, it would make sense as a sort of 'societal evolution' to ensure that one's children are provided for.  The height thing makes a bit of sense as a regular evolutionary desire to mate with someone who isn't just healthy, but physically superior to other potential mates.  But it's really interesting to me that height in particular has such a profound effect on apparent attractiveness.

/5'10", glad I didn't grow more for convenience's sake.
//I'm like the guy from idiocracy.  Average in EVERY CONCEIVABLE WAY.
 
2013-08-27 02:24:14 PM

treesloth: Saiga410: OK but what if a blokes name is Jim or Steve, or Gary.  Why are people named Will only allowed this treatement?

Picard:  Fire at will!
Riker:  What the fu-
Worf phasers Riker out of existence; Picard looks shocked for a moment, then a small smile appears.
Picard:  Worf, we must communicate better, but accidents do happen.


That gag makes more sense with Data instead of Worf, what with Data's literalness.
 
2013-08-27 02:25:28 PM

BeesNuts: Cubicle Jockey: Taking generic person X, they found that adding 2 inches to his stated height had the same effect as giving him $50,000 in stated additional income. Chicks like tall guys.

Which has always made me wonder if it's genuinely attractive to be tall, or if women intrinsically desire some level of 'inferiority' to their chosen mate.


To clarify, since that's bound to rustle some jimmies the way it's worded.  When we're talking about women dating tall men, we might be talking an inch or two or a head or more.  I'm kind of talking specifically about when I see a couple with more than a head's height difference.  I can't help but simultaneously wonder if the man likes short women because he can throw them around the bedroom, and if the woman likes tall men because she wants to be thrown about the bedroom.
 
2013-08-27 02:36:22 PM

Wellon Dowd: Does subby assume all DNA researchers are men or just like really tall chicks?


Where all T's now.
 
2013-08-27 02:36:32 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: Elandriel: cman: Ethically speaking, editing DNA is perfectly fine

We are in a game against extinction.

Our ancestors wished they could program themselves and give them a leg-up against the rest of the world.

Now we are in a position to do that

But Jesus, cman.  He would frown because I don't know.

I predict DNA editing and stem cell research will quickly become like abortion for the folks with religious objections - their case will be the exception, the one case where it's acceptable, because, well, that's different.  But they'll still oppose it for anyone else.


Not true for us all.  I'm all for it curing or eradicating diseases like Cancer.  Helping to diminish or cure birth defects like Autism, or helping people recover from heart attacks, strokes, or terrible accidents.  I'm not sure it should be used to turn people into the physical embodiment of Adonis or Venus.  Or create a race of Merpeople or humans with wings.
 
2013-08-27 02:37:05 PM

Big_Fat_Liar: Wellon Dowd: Does subby assume all DNA researchers are men or just like really tall chicks?

Where all T's now.


God farking dammit, the joke is even lamer with a typo...fark.
 
2013-08-27 02:41:19 PM

Oldiron_79: mod3072: So... just out of curiosity, let's pretend for a moment that I am not already perfect in every way. In this completely imaginary scenario, instead of being built like a Greek God, I'm 5' 9", overweight, and I'm bow-legged and have a 4 inch penis. Hypothetically. If they found a way to rewrite my genetic code to be more-or-less perfect, would I actually change? Would anything at all happen? Would I die horribly? I can see how it could fix some genetic diseases in a fully grown adult, but could you change your physical build/appearance once you are fully developed, or would that have to happen when you were very young? Not that I would want the gene to give me a huge black wang anyways. I'm just asking for a friend.

You might could grow yer wang since its soft tissue, but once your bone's growth plates are fused you arent gonna get taller, your kids would be but not yourself.


that depends. Are you simply swapping amino acids or are you activating them?

Right now, just replacing DNA could only disrupt actively read and expressed sites. In order to grow people to 6'4" you'd have to not only change the genes but actually express the genes in the proper order to cannibalize existing tissue and then rebuild In the target spec (and it would probably hurt to boot)

Basically, we now have a way to disrupt or tweak genes that are being actively used by the body. We can probably disrupt things like cancers and other broken gene disorders that are actively expressed and that would be it.
 
2013-08-27 02:51:03 PM

ReverendJynxed: They stop growing because DNA says so. Tell the DNA to keep doing this function in a specific way and it should still work no? Isn't this the type of control over DNA we are discussing?


I highly doubt we're good enough where we can literally program DNA to follow instructions.  It's not like changing a parameter in a line of computer code, because the DNA code itself is still several levels removed from the phenotype.  What we can do is isolate genes that are (probably) related to certain traits, and place them in the right place in the person's genome.  Once it's there it might be expressed in the form of certain proteins that it encodes, but those proteins might not interact with the rest of the body chemistry the way you anticipate.

In any case, there probably are genes that make someone grow past the age of puberty, but this usually causes problems -- primarily because the person's joints and ligaments can't support all that extra weight.  If you were to infect someone with the acromegaly gene, you'd also have to follow up with a second treatment later on to remove it.  In that case, it would be a lot simpler (not to mention cheaper) just to put the patient on a HGH regimen.

TL;DR: you can't just set growth.turnoff=35; you have to find some who already has a gene that says growth.turnoff=35, and be pretty sure that that's what the gene really says.
 
2013-08-27 02:59:04 PM
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-08-27 02:59:18 PM

Arsten: Basically, we now have a way to disrupt or tweak genes that are being actively used by the body. We can probably disrupt things like cancers and other broken gene disorders that are actively expressed and that would be it.


To reiterate from one of my posts above we do NOT have a tool that allows us to effectively manipulate the DNA of cells in a living organism. While TALENs do get used in living organisms (Zebrafish) for research purposes that is because we can inject them in to embryos. That and and we can work with hundreds to thousands of fish at a time, which helps when it isn't effective 100% of the time. This is not something even remotely able to inject into a person for any sort of large scale work. You might be able to do something similar to how we are currently doing gene therapy where you work on isolated cells or do very specific injections into tissues where it is possible (eyes). Even then it would be way less practical in almost all circumstances when compared to the viral vectors we currently use.
 
2013-08-27 02:59:40 PM

BeesNuts: But yeah, to suggest that because those components are immortal, things that are made of them are also immortal


I never said that. I'm curious as to how you can have a biological age when clearly, the atoms themselves do not have an age. And even if protons have a half-life, I'll take the 10^32 years, please.

Are you people so simple-minded I have to spell. everything. out. word. by. tedious. word?

Atoms do not have an age. They are interchangeable. Are you seriously telling me that you could tell if a single carbon atom came from my middle-aged ass or a baby?

Really?

Please describe these tests, and what you are measuring. Seems it should be simple enough?

Put one carbon atom in a Penning trap, an atom you claim is "40 years old", and another you claim is "1 year old". Make it in a fusor if it tickles you.

Now describe what real physical and chemical tests you can do to the atom to determine this "age"?

You can't. There is no such thing. Whatever "biological age" is, it's certainly not a property of single atoms.

And yes, I do claim that if atoms do not have a biological age, well, the limits to biological age don't come from the atoms themselves, but the patterns.

Putting a colony on Mars, the limits very much come from the atoms. Limits on energy you can get in a practical propellant, limits of material strength, limits on engineering, etc... ad nauseam.

So riddle me this: how can two thirty year old humans make a zero year old baby, on a planet 4 billion years old in a universe 14 billion years old?

Do they go to the new atom factory?

Do plants use fusion to make new carbon atoms?

Oh do tell, I'm on tenterhooks over here.
 
2013-08-27 03:03:10 PM
mutantville.com
 
2013-08-27 03:19:46 PM

entropic_existence: To reiterate from one of my posts above we do NOT have a tool that allows us to effectively manipulate the DNA of cells in a living organism. While TALENs do get used in living organisms (Zebrafish) for research purposes that is because we can inject them in to embryos. That and and we can work with hundreds to thousands of fish at a time, which helps when it isn't effective 100% of the time. This is not something even remotely able to inject into a person for any sort of large scale work. You might be able to do something similar to how we are currently doing gene therapy where you work on isolated cells or do very specific injections into tissues where it is possible (eyes). Even then it would be way less practical in almost all circumstances when compared to the viral vectors we currently use.


What about EMS recombination?
 
2013-08-27 03:21:20 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: BeesNuts: But yeah, to suggest that because those components are immortal, things that are made of them are also immortal

I never said that. I'm curious as to how you can have a biological age when clearly, the atoms themselves do not have an age. And even if protons have a half-life, I'll take the 10^32 years, please.


I never said you did.  I asked the one responding to you if he had seen you suggest that argument, because it sounded ridiculous.

I have a biological age because we're made of cells that are then made of those immortal particles.  Those cells are complicated, and there's this thing called Entropy.

How old is the earth?  The sun?  The atoms may have come from beyond the reach of time, but there was a point in time, as experienced by humankind, BEFORE there was a sun and AFTER there was a sun.  You're so far outside the realm of science that you shouldn't be trying to talk scienc-y.  Stick to philosophical discussion about the nature of time or something.  You won't sound so silly.
 
2013-08-27 03:23:28 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: cman: Quantum Apostrophe: Except for living longer. That's always bad because atoms have an age.

You do realize that every seven years you are pretty much an entirely different person, right?

Everything on a cellular level changes. You have the same memories, but that is about it

I know. You have to realize most of my posts are from the point of view of the kind of "arguments" I get from Space Nutters, ie nothing of substance.

Atoms are, well, atoms, they're all the same and certainly don't have a sense of time at the biological scale. I see no fundamental limit to extending our lifespan. There may be plenty of others, but atoms becoming slow and middle-aged ain't one of them.


In the vacuum of space, no one can hear you skeet!

/skeet, skeet, SKEET!
/skeet
 
2013-08-27 03:27:45 PM

JohnnyRebel88: piperTom: Researchers are 6'4" (193 cm)?!?  Why so tall?  They'll bump their heads on stuff.  Better to be 5'10" (177cm).

Probably WWE fans.  5'10" is pretty close to the ideal size, however I played basketball and at the time I wished I had another 2-4 inches. That's the difference between scholorship and a paying for school.




Skeelo would agree
 
2013-08-27 03:31:28 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: And yes, I do claim that if atoms do not have a biological age, well, the limits to biological age don't come from the atoms themselves, but the patterns.

Putting a colony on Mars, the limits very much come from the atoms. Limits on energy you can get in a practical propellant, limits of material strength, limits on engineering, etc... ad nauseam.

So riddle me this: how can two thirty year old humans make a zero year old baby, on a planet 4 billion years old in a universe 14 billion years old?
Do they go to the new atom factory?
Do plants use fusion to make new carbon atoms?
Oh do tell, I'm on tenterhooks over here.


I'm not sure what procreation has to do with immortality.  Are you now saying that because people can have kids by reorganizing atoms from food we eat into energy and mass that we can reverse the aging process by ... reorganizing atoms from food we eat into energy and mass?

You're saying too many disparate things.  At its base, your claim seems to be that because subatomic particles are 'immortal' and "ageless", aging isn't a function of the atoms but their organization.  Which ... means absolutely god damned nothing.  Yeah, nobody argues that.

Can you explain how we're going to prevent the trillions of reorganizations our bodies go through every day from leaving the legacy of imperfect reorganizations that leads inevitably to your death?
 
2013-08-27 03:37:12 PM

GRCooper: entropic_existence: To reiterate from one of my posts above we do NOT have a tool that allows us to effectively manipulate the DNA of cells in a living organism. While TALENs do get used in living organisms (Zebrafish) for research purposes that is because we can inject them in to embryos. That and and we can work with hundreds to thousands of fish at a time, which helps when it isn't effective 100% of the time. This is not something even remotely able to inject into a person for any sort of large scale work. You might be able to do something similar to how we are currently doing gene therapy where you work on isolated cells or do very specific injections into tissues where it is possible (eyes). Even then it would be way less practical in almost all circumstances when compared to the viral vectors we currently use.

What about EMS recombination?


We've already tried it, Roy.

i1.creativecow.net
 
2013-08-27 03:38:07 PM

BeesNuts: Quantum Apostrophe: And yes, I do claim that if atoms do not have a biological age, well, the limits to biological age don't come from the atoms themselves, but the patterns.

Putting a colony on Mars, the limits very much come from the atoms. Limits on energy you can get in a practical propellant, limits of material strength, limits on engineering, etc... ad nauseam.

So riddle me this: how can two thirty year old humans make a zero year old baby, on a planet 4 billion years old in a universe 14 billion years old?
Do they go to the new atom factory?
Do plants use fusion to make new carbon atoms?
Oh do tell, I'm on tenterhooks over here.

I'm not sure what procreation has to do with immortality.  Are you now saying that because people can have kids by reorganizing atoms from food we eat into energy and mass that we can reverse the aging process by ... reorganizing atoms from food we eat into energy and mass?

You're saying too many disparate things.  At its base, your claim seems to be that because subatomic particles are 'immortal' and "ageless", aging isn't a function of the atoms but their organization.  Which ... means absolutely god damned nothing.  Yeah, nobody argues that.

Can you explain how we're going to prevent the trillions of reorganizations our bodies go through every day from leaving the legacy of imperfect reorganizations that leads inevitably to your death?


Lay off the  LSD, fellas.  It a farking Tuesday afternoon, for God sake.
 
2013-08-27 03:39:30 PM

BeesNuts: I have a biological age because we're made of cells that are then made of those immortal particles. Those cells are complicated, and there's this thing called Entropy.


There's this thing called the Sun. It converts 4 million tons of mass to energy per second. I think we're OK. Unless you are saying something else.

I mean, it's just this thin shell of atoms continuously cycling through the entire biosphere with energy from the Sun, right?

BeesNuts: You're so far outside the realm of science


How so? You skipped a lot of very simple challenges, seems to me. If you can accept that atoms don't have an age in the biological sense, can you find the limits to a lifespan?

It would be in the pattern the atoms make.

Are you saying we'll never, ever figure out a PATTERN?

All I'm saying is we evolved. Now we should engineer our lifespan, like we've engineered every single other thing in our Western life. So what?

So we'll never be "immortal". Fine. I'll take 50000 years then. So what?

You want to go outside the realm of science? Go talk to the people who invoke non-existent technologies as if they're a done deal, then extrapolate the next steps!

"It's fairly easy to make anti-matter rocket engines, so clearly we'll colonize Andromeda."


Just because Simon Van Der Meer made an anti-proton storage system that could store 12 anti-protons at some huge expense, nothing else follows from that.

We have no anti-matter rockets. There won't be a Moon colony. etc

It's simple.

1) There is no fundamental physical limit to extending our life. It's not the age of atoms, and it's not energy. Atoms don't have an age, and energy comes from the Sun. All else is social details.
2) There are plenty of real physical limits in the way of manned space exploration, let alone the colony fantasies. Never mind all the social limits like money.

There. Still outside the realm of science for your delicate sensibilities?

Sheeezus keerist.
 
2013-08-27 03:44:10 PM

GRCooper: What about EMS recombination?


Unfortunately Blade Runner makes for a poor genetics textbook.
 
2013-08-27 03:47:19 PM

Somaticasual: Arsten: Right now, just replacing DNA could only disrupt actively read and expressed sites. In order to grow people to 6'4" you'd have to not only change the genes but actually express the genes in the proper order to cannibalize existing tissue and then rebuild In the target spec (and it would probably hurt to boot)

This. The reason making someone taller would be a complicated ordeal is that - you can't just change the skeletal height. You also have to adjust a variety of internal organs and even the length of veins/etc to match your additional height. You might even need a slightly larger heart/etc to avoid circulatory issues.


i.dailymail.co.uk

It's possible.  But to get to six-four, you would need to be six-one to begin with -- makes it kinda moot. To the guy who's 5' 3", it might make all the difference. Hopefully he would have some cash left over for his head doctor.
 
2013-08-27 03:47:43 PM

arbitterm: Great, designer children. Whole generations that look almost identical because their parents followed the current fads in "MetroGenetics"


They would have to go to great lengths to achieve individuality.
pearlsofgeekdom.com

Or it could be a good thing!
grantgould.com

Unless this happens.
frogpants.com

If you're Gen X and don't recognize what shows these pics came from, I pity you.
 
2013-08-27 03:48:29 PM

Somaticasual: Arsten: Right now, just replacing DNA could only disrupt actively read and expressed sites. In order to grow people to 6'4" you'd have to not only change the genes but actually express the genes in the proper order to cannibalize existing tissue and then rebuild In the target spec (and it would probably hurt to boot)

This. The reason making someone taller would be a complicated ordeal is that - you can't just change the skeletal height. You also have to adjust a variety of internal organs and even the length of veins/etc to match your additional height. You might even need a slightly larger heart/etc to avoid circulatory issues.


The epiphyseal plates shut after a certain age, but why couldn't we just reboot the chondrocytes? They grew once from a single cell after all.

So much to explore! Such complexity! Such amazing patterns!

Good thing our computers are getting better, eh?

Too bad all the doom and gloom sci-fi like the Outer Limits was all about how "evil" it is to "play god".

If the biological sciences had the same PR as NASA did in the '60s, you wouldn't need me...
 
2013-08-27 03:53:22 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: you ... need me...


04.images.fireden.net
 
2013-08-27 03:56:38 PM

Magorn: Felgraf: Arkanaut: I don't think editing DNA is going to do much for your looks after you reach adulthood.

I dunno. If we're able to inject a person with something that goes, like, "If you see this sequence, delete and replace with X", you could probably fix some diseases that are 'caused' by your body producing farked up proteins/not producing the right proteins.

Or basically wipe out a lot of cancers.

Obviously that's still a ways away, I suspect.

we do that already with gene therapy, or at least so I understand the process, and IIRC we basically do a completely replacement of all the cells in our body about every 7 years or so, so IF you were able to infect every cell in your body with new DNA code that turned on or off certain genes, then it seems like yes, gradually you would be "reformed in favor of your new matrix" so to speak....thought he transition could be VERY weird....


So actual science-talking person want to explain to me why I'm an idiot now?


You're posing on FARK.  Hey, I'm in good company now!
 
2013-08-27 03:59:09 PM
We're not there yet?!

Then how do you explain this:

img29.imageshack.us
 
2013-08-27 03:59:58 PM

entropic_existence: Arsten: Basically, we now have a way to disrupt or tweak genes that are being actively used by the body. We can probably disrupt things like cancers and other broken gene disorders that are actively expressed and that would be it.

To reiterate from one of my posts above we do NOT have a tool that allows us to effectively manipulate the DNA of cells in a living organism. While TALENs do get used in living organisms (Zebrafish) for research purposes that is because we can inject them in to embryos. That and and we can work with hundreds to thousands of fish at a time, which helps when it isn't effective 100% of the time. This is not something even remotely able to inject into a person for any sort of large scale work. You might be able to do something similar to how we are currently doing gene therapy where you work on isolated cells or do very specific injections into tissues where it is possible (eyes). Even then it would be way less practical in almost all circumstances when compared to the viral vectors we currently use.


You're right. I extrapolated to a future possible position while actively saying "Now". Do'h.
 
2013-08-27 04:17:44 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: We're not there yet?!

Then how do you explain this:

[402x604 from http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/8003/jymx.jpg image 402x604]


Easy.  Photoshop.
 
2013-08-27 04:23:28 PM
Fark the chin and great hair, I'd be happy if they could use this to conveniently edit out the code bugs that are generally causing occasional nasty hiccups in DNA repair mechanisms on my dad's side and the rather serious immune system bugs on my maternal side of the family that tend to cause the systems for "attack invading viruses" to go "attack insulin" instead. :D

(Ah, fun with probable Lynch syndrome on one side of the family and probable hereditary type 1.5 (aka "slow adult-onset autoimmune") diabetes on the other.  As I put it to the doc when I got fixed, "My genetic code is presently a DNA Superfund site as is.  You SERIOUSLY think I want to pass that on?")
 
2013-08-27 04:33:37 PM
Ok, I realize I am setting myself up for ridicule here, but I am exactly 6'4", full head of hair, blue eyes, athletic and somewhat of a good jawline.  So go ahead, joke away.

i.imgur.com

i.imgur.com


And one, you know, for scale:

i.imgur.com
 
2013-08-27 04:37:26 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: If the biological sciences had the same PR as NASA did in the '60s, you wouldn't need me...


Genetics gets lots of money, although like ALL of the sciences it could use more. The major reason we can;t go full steam ahead on developing radical human genetic technologies is because if we fark up, and we will, it will result in people who die or develop nasty forms of cancer. So we go slow, and most of what we develop is developed towards curing disease instead of "designer" enhancements. Where you will see adoption of designer genetics first will primarily be in agriculture, because it is a hell of a lot easier to get ethics approval to make bigger, meatier cows with better fat deposition characteristics.

Arsten: You're right. I extrapolated to a future possible position while actively saying "Now". Do'h.


Probably TALENs or their direct derivatives will never be the right tool. But some hybrid form of viral-delivery system, perhaps with TALEN or CRISPR (a similar system) like components will. Of course it would be way easier to do genetic engineering at the egg/sperm stage, or early embryonic at the very least, rather than in adults. But we can currently do rudimentary gene therapy in the eyes of adults for instance, so certain problems/tissues will always be more amenable.
 
2013-08-27 04:38:27 PM

docmattic: Easy. Photoshop.


img543.imageshack.us
img211.imageshack.us
img801.imageshack.us


any other guesses?
 
2013-08-27 04:51:06 PM

Somaticasual: I give it 4 years before there's a penis size enhancement pill based on these findings..




So, no more Corvettes?
 
2013-08-27 04:52:00 PM

ggecko: Ok, I realize I am setting myself up for ridicule here, but I am exactly 6'4", full head of hair, blue eyes, athletic and somewhat of a good jawline.  So go ahead, joke away.

[850x1276 from http://i.imgur.com/ZYc5D.jpg image 850x1276]

[850x1278 from http://i.imgur.com/B4c6K.jpg image 850x1278]


And one, you know, for scale:

[850x1274 from http://i.imgur.com/FsDR97p.jpg image 850x1274]


Scott Perri?
 
2013-08-27 04:54:58 PM

Felgraf: fireclown: Shame his kid was such a jerkass.

He was honestly kind of a prick too.


Who's the bigger jerkass: the jerkass or the jerkass that made him?
 
2013-08-27 05:07:14 PM
Gattaca is finally upon us.  Great.  As a short, fat and non-genius type of person, I expect when this fully hits that I'll be turned into Soylent Green.

/it's people!
 
2013-08-27 05:19:36 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: docmattic: Easy. Photoshop.






any other guesses?


Sorry, I'm gonna need more data in order to come to a decision

/heh heh, heh heh, he said "come"
//nice shthingies
///shuddup Beavis
 
2013-08-27 05:46:26 PM

ggecko: Ok, I realize I am setting myself up for ridicule here, but I am exactly 6'4", full head of hair, blue eyes, athletic and somewhat of a good jawline.  So go ahead, joke away.

[850x1276 from http://i.imgur.com/ZYc5D.jpg image 850x1276]

[850x1278 from http://i.imgur.com/B4c6K.jpg image 850x1278]


And one, you know, for scale:

[850x1274 from http://i.imgur.com/FsDR97p.jpg image 850x1274]


Could you believe it wasn't butter!?!

/sorry, had to
 
2013-08-27 05:47:17 PM

GRCooper: The Stealth Hippopotamus: docmattic: Easy. Photoshop.

any other guesses?

Sorry, I'm gonna need more data in order to come to a decision

/heh heh, heh heh, he said "come"
//nice shthingies
///shuddup Beavis


'cause you asked

img809.imageshack.us
img542.imageshack.us
img850.imageshack.us
admittedly she went though a period where her eyebrow got a little weird, but I'm not that picky
 
2013-08-27 05:58:39 PM

ggecko: Ok, I realize I am setting myself up for ridicule here, but I am exactly 6'4", full head of hair, blue eyes, athletic and somewhat of a good jawline.  So go ahead, joke away.

[850x1276 from http://i.imgur.com/ZYc5D.jpg image 850x1276]

[850x1278 from http://i.imgur.com/B4c6K.jpg image 850x1278]


And one, you know, for scale:

[850x1274 from http://i.imgur.com/FsDR97p.jpg image 850x1274]


Why would you post these images?
 
2013-08-27 06:32:10 PM

DrRatchet: [300x141 from http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cf/Plasmid_(engl ish).svg/300px-Plasmid_(english).svg.png image 300x141]

So, Plasmids. We're talking about Plasmids here, right?


Anyway, I'm looking forward to evolving, today!


Damn Splicers.
 
2013-08-27 06:32:46 PM

SonOfSpam: That gag makes more sense with Data instead of Worf, what with Data's literalness.


I thought about that, but decided that Data's ethical subroutine wouldn't allow him to just straight up murder someone, even if ordered to do so.  I was going more for Worf intentionally misinterpreting.
 
2013-08-27 06:57:03 PM
Holy fark! Did anyone catch that the dude who essentially made this new find possible was named Andrew Mercer. "For this he adapted a "directed evolution" technique developed last year by Andrew C. Mercer, who at the time was a research associate in the Barbas laboratory."

That's somewhat coincidental...
 
2013-08-27 07:10:43 PM
Ok, no more Heinlein references without a blatant explanation.
 
2013-08-27 07:35:00 PM

Corbow6: Holy fark! Did anyone catch that the dude who essentially made this new find possible was named Andrew Mercer. "For this he adapted a "directed evolution" technique developed last year by Andrew C. Mercer, who at the time was a research associate in the Barbas laboratory."

That's somewhat coincidental...


Oh yeah, Prototype. Didn't the first one have some kind of story about a particularly brooding hoodie?
 
Displayed 50 of 158 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report