Notices
Results 1 to 34 of 34
Like Tree6Likes
  • 2 Post By exchemist
  • 1 Post By PumaMan
  • 1 Post By exchemist
  • 1 Post By exchemist
  • 1 Post By Dywyddyr

Thread: Cancer and using dead partners sperm

  1. #1 Cancer and using dead partners sperm 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    537
    Hi Gurus

    Can anyone tell me if we know with 100% accuracy that using someones sperm (who has been diagnosed with cancer) is safe?

    The sperm samples were taken just before cancer treatment for a brain tumour and we have seen cases where the grieving partner/widow would like to use insemination to have their deceased partners child.

    Is there any risk of cancer cells breaking away and ending up in seminal fluid?

    Thanks.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,150
    I dont know, but just to clarify the scenario, would the potential cancer cells undergo(have to survive) freezing?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    537
    Thanks Icewendigo

    It is interesting that you say that because I have heard that temperature can be a contributing factor in determining whether the child is born male or female.

    Cryogenics are used in beating some cancer cells, yes. Yes to all though?
    Last edited by hannah40; March 6th, 2014 at 07:16 AM. Reason: additional info
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    Is there any risk of cancer cells breaking away and ending up in seminal fluid?

    Thanks.
    Well no. Even if there was a cancer cell in the fluid it would not affect the sperm or the egg and would simply die if it was not already dead.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    537
    How do we know that some cancers are genetic? Surely sperm and eggs are the carriers at some point?
    No?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,414
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    How do we know that some cancers are genetic? Surely sperm and eggs are the carriers at some point?
    No?
    No I Don't think so. As I understand it, a cancer has mutated DNA, which leads to uncontrolled proliferation. But it is just a tissue cell, so it needs a supply of nutrient for its metabolism. If it gets this it will divide. But if you transplant somebody's cancer cell into a different body, the immune system will reject it as foreign, deny it its nutrients and kill it. So if some cells passed in with the sperm into the woman's uterus I think they would just die, while the lucky sperm cell that finds an egg will merge with it….. and off we go.

    As I understand it, "inherited" cancers are merely predispositions to cancer, not cancer itself. If they were the latter, the foetus would get cancer during development and would not survive.

    But I'm open to correction by a physiologist of course.
    mat5592 and hannah40 like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    537
    Thanks.

    I would be interested to hear anyone elses input too.

    It makes me wonder where the origins of cancer genetic and predisposition started, how it crept into the genes. Or, indeed into the human species itself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,414
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    Thanks.

    I would be interested to hear anyone elses input too.

    It makes me wonder where the origins of cancer genetic and predisposition started, how it crept into the genes. Or, indeed into the human species itself.
    Well, I would imagine it is like any other hereditary weakness - if it does not affect reproductive success, there is no reason why natural selection would have selected against it. A lot of cancers develop at an older age than that at which, during most of human history, if not necessarily today, most of the children would have been born.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    537
    The hereditary, or rather faulty gene cancers that I know of are breast cancer and some digestive tract cancers. Cervical cancer apparently isn't hereditary (linked to hpv though).

    The two things that stand out regarding the faulty gene in breast cancer (pardon the pun) is the fact that it could be hormone linked and reproductive linked.

    The cancers of the digestive tract could actually indicate that it is diet related but then, the hereditary side could have been a factor that came about by what earlier man ate for food?
    You mentioned about natural selection, selecting against it but it could if it knew of it but maybe it didn't and cancer is indeed a biological hiccup that we have put into our own biological makeup?

    See, people look for a cure but what we really need to do is look to eliminate it or at least reduce the risks of it developing, which we all personally can try.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,414
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    The hereditary, or rather faulty gene cancers that I know of are breast cancer and some digestive tract cancers. Cervical cancer apparently isn't hereditary (linked to hpv though).

    The two things that stand out regarding the faulty gene in breast cancer (pardon the pun) is the fact that it could be hormone linked and reproductive linked.

    The cancers of the digestive tract could actually indicate that it is diet related but then, the hereditary side could have been a factor that came about by what earlier man ate for food?
    You mentioned about natural selection, selecting against it but it could if it knew of it but maybe it didn't and cancer is indeed a biological hiccup that we have put into our own biological makeup?

    See, people look for a cure but what we really need to do is look to eliminate it or at least reduce the risks of it developing, which we all personally can try.
    Er, you seem to make some statements as questions, which I'm not sure how to respond to.

    Also I'm not sure what you mean by a hiccup we put into our own makeup. Surely we have no control over what traits get into the genetic mix, do we?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    537
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    The hereditary, or rather faulty gene cancers that I know of are breast cancer and some digestive tract cancers. Cervical cancer apparently isn't hereditary (linked to hpv though).

    The two things that stand out regarding the faulty gene in breast cancer (pardon the pun) is the fact that it could be hormone linked and reproductive linked.

    The cancers of the digestive tract could actually indicate that it is diet related but then, the hereditary side could have been a factor that came about by what earlier man ate for food?
    You mentioned about natural selection, selecting against it but it could if it knew of it but maybe it didn't and cancer is indeed a biological hiccup that we have put into our own biological makeup?

    See, people look for a cure but what we really need to do is look to eliminate it or at least reduce the risks of it developing, which we all personally can try.
    Er, you seem to make some statements as questions, which I'm not sure how to respond to.

    Also I'm not sure what you mean by a hiccup we put into our own makeup. Surely we have no control over what traits get into the genetic mix, do we?
    We wont know the answers simply by debating it. We can only experiment and try methods and ideas.

    Do you think they are natures doing? Some things can be natural but there are certain illness or diseases, I believe we have induced or have contributed to its causes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,294
    What ones have we introduced?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,414
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    The hereditary, or rather faulty gene cancers that I know of are breast cancer and some digestive tract cancers. Cervical cancer apparently isn't hereditary (linked to hpv though).

    The two things that stand out regarding the faulty gene in breast cancer (pardon the pun) is the fact that it could be hormone linked and reproductive linked.

    The cancers of the digestive tract could actually indicate that it is diet related but then, the hereditary side could have been a factor that came about by what earlier man ate for food?
    You mentioned about natural selection, selecting against it but it could if it knew of it but maybe it didn't and cancer is indeed a biological hiccup that we have put into our own biological makeup?

    See, people look for a cure but what we really need to do is look to eliminate it or at least reduce the risks of it developing, which we all personally can try.
    Er, you seem to make some statements as questions, which I'm not sure how to respond to.

    Also I'm not sure what you mean by a hiccup we put into our own makeup. Surely we have no control over what traits get into the genetic mix, do we?
    We wont know the answers simply by debating it. We can only experiment and try methods and ideas.

    Do you think they are natures doing? Some things can be natural but there are certain illness or diseases, I believe we have induced or have contributed to its causes.
    Well of course they are nature's doing. Diseases are natural processes, just like anything else in biology.

    It's true that we humans, uniquely in the animal kingdom, have recently (in the last few thousand years, that is) become capable of thinking about the health consequences of aspects of our behaviour and changing it. And humans, just as other animals, can do things that are not helpful to health. But that does not mean the disease processes are somehow man-made, as far as I can see.

    But perhaps I don't fully grasp your meaning. Do you have any examples of diseases you suspect may be man-made, or contributed to by man in some way? And what experiments or observations would you propose to test the hypothesis?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    537
    Like I said, I don't know for 100 % certainty that my proposals are right (hey, that is how science is sometimes) things can start as theories, right?

    I don't always take everything that is presented to me as FACT.

    I have to look in to things and ask questions because sometimes things aren't always as simple as they look, or as believeable.

    If you want to solve a problem then strip it all back to where it all began.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,414
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    Like I said, I don't know for 100 % certainty that my proposals are right (hey, that is how science is sometimes) things can start as theories, right?

    I don't always take everything that is presented to me as FACT.

    I have to look in to things and ask questions because sometimes things aren't always as simple as they look, or as believeable.

    If you want to solve a problem then strip it all back to where it all began.
    Very commendable. So let's do that, then. So I repeat my question: what examples can you give of diseases you suspect are man-made or man-influenced, and how might this be corroborated by observation or experiment?
    Last edited by exchemist; March 7th, 2014 at 04:40 AM. Reason: corrected word
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    537
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    Like I said, I don't know for 100 % certainty that my proposals are right (hey, that is how science is sometimes) things can start as theories, right?

    I don't always take everything that is presented to me as FACT.

    I have to look in to things and ask questions because sometimes things aren't always as simple as they look, or as believeable.

    If you want to solve a problem then strip it all back to where it all began.
    Very commendable. So let's do that, then. So I repeat my question: what examples can you give of diseases you suspect are man-made or man-influenced, and how might this be corroborated by observation or experiment?
    Are you for real?

    What has this whole thread been about?

    Didn't I start off asking if we can say with 100% certainty if cancer is not influenced by what we as humans do? I also question if we know with 100% certainty that certain situations wont cause problems down the line later on, such as using the sperm of a person who has cancer in their system.

    I've been on here practically a day and I tell you what, I've seen so much evasion of answering questions, counterclaims without any real substance and people who miss the point (maybe deliberately ) or, they really are daft. Then I get more questions put to me, which actually (the answers to them) are in my previous comments.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    I think reading Hannah's threads is like trying to divide by zero.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    537
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    I think reading Hannah's threads is like trying to divide by zero.
    That is your opinion? or FACT?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    537
    Here goes...my final conclusion until somebody can show me evidence that cancer is natural disease in all cases?

    We know we can induce cancer through smoking and drinking.

    So, this proves that cancer is not neccessarily a natural biological disease is it?

    Now, we can't get hiv through smoking or drinking, we can't get other diseases by doin the same.

    So, once we know for certain where or how cancer managed to get in to the human (and Animal ) biological system then we can advance.

    Who's got the evidence? either way?

    You can sit here and tell me I'm wrong all day but show me why or tell me why I don't make sense?

    Give me something to work with and not just childish insults.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    739
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    Give me something to work with and not just childish insults.
    Every other post you make shows how willfully ignorant you are. You draw conclusions from invalid premises. You act like you know all when in reality you know very little. Then there is this paranoia that everyone is picking on you. That is why people "attack" your posts. When quite a few people attack your posts maybe, just maybe, it's YOU.
    PhDemon likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    537
    Quote Originally Posted by PumaMan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    Give me something to work with and not just childish insults.
    Every other post you make shows how willfully ignorant you are. You draw conclusions from invalid premises. You act like you know all when in reality you know very little. Then there is this paranoia that everyone is picking on you. That is why people "attack" your posts. When quite a few people attack your posts maybe, just maybe, it's YOU.
    Tut tut.

    More ranting.

    I'm not interested in your personal opinions of me or my ideas, answer my requests will you or feel free to skip over/ignore anything I write.

    It's not rocket science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    739
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    It's not rocket science.
    You don't know basic science, much less rocket science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    537
    Quote Originally Posted by PumaMan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    It's not rocket science.
    You don't know basic science, much less rocket science.
    Oh, look, I've got a little forum stalker!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    739
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PumaMan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    It's not rocket science.
    You don't know basic science, much less rocket science.
    Oh, look, I've got a little forum stalker!
    There's that paranoia popping up again. I guess that is what feeds your adherence to conspiracy theories.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,414
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    Like I said, I don't know for 100 % certainty that my proposals are right (hey, that is how science is sometimes) things can start as theories, right?

    I don't always take everything that is presented to me as FACT.

    I have to look in to things and ask questions because sometimes things aren't always as simple as they look, or as believeable.

    If you want to solve a problem then strip it all back to where it all began.
    Very commendable. So let's do that, then. So I repeat my question: what examples can you give of diseases you suspect are man-made or man-influenced, and how might this be corroborated by observation or experiment?
    Are you for real?

    What has this whole thread been about?

    Didn't I start off asking if we can say with 100% certainty if cancer is not influenced by what we as humans do? I also question if we know with 100% certainty that certain situations wont cause problems down the line later on, such as using the sperm of a person who has cancer in their system.

    I've been on here practically a day and I tell you what, I've seen so much evasion of answering questions, counterclaims without any real substance and people who miss the point (maybe deliberately ) or, they really are daft. Then I get more questions put to me, which actually (the answers to them) are in my previous comments.
    Just a minute. It is you who is putting forward the hypothesis that cancer is caused by what we do. I am not at all sure I understand what you are saying, but I am doubtful. So, I am asking you to give me some possible examples, as often in discussion it really helps bring things down to earth and avoid misunderstanding if examples are given. That's all. For some reason you seem to think this is an unreasonable thing to ask.

    I am sorry if the answers are in your previous comments and I have missed them, but I'm afraid I could not see them there. You did refer to some digestive cancers and breast cancer as possibly having a hereditary element, which is fine (I have no idea whether they are or not), but I did not see you advance any ideas as to whether these might be man-made in some way and how this might be shown. If you meant these, can you elaborate on what you mean in these cases by man made, or man - influenced?

    P.S. I don't want to get into some sort of fight with you, but I see on another thread you have managed to pick a fight with Strange, who in my opinion is one of the most sound, clear and patient science posters on this forum. Please understand that all I am trying to do is elucidate what you mean, in a more or less scientific format. Because this is a science forum, and we do need to get ideas expressed in a way we can get to grips with.
    dan hunter likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    537
    Quote Originally Posted by PumaMan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PumaMan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    It's not rocket science.
    You don't know basic science, much less rocket science.
    Oh, look, I've got a little forum stalker!
    There's that paranoia popping up again. I guess that is what feeds your adherence to conspiracy theories.
    Paranoia? I think you are doing a good job by proving me to be correct!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,414
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    Here goes...my final conclusion until somebody can show me evidence that cancer is natural disease in all cases?

    We know we can induce cancer through smoking and drinking.

    So, this proves that cancer is not neccessarily a natural biological disease is it?

    Now, we can't get hiv through smoking or drinking, we can't get other diseases by doin the same.

    So, once we know for certain where or how cancer managed to get in to the human (and Animal ) biological system then we can advance.

    Who's got the evidence? either way?

    You can sit here and tell me I'm wrong all day but show me why or tell me why I don't make sense?

    Give me something to work with and not just childish insults.
    Your logic is faulty. The fact we can "induce" cancer by smoking, or by eating or drinking a lot of particular things, does NOT mean that cancer isn't a natural biological disease.

    It most certainly is.

    You would be quite right to say that cancer can be triggered by a number of different things in the environment, and that we have some ability to make decisions about our degree of exposure to these triggers. But that is not at all the same as claiming cancer is man-made in some way.

    Cancer is just one of many operational hazards of being a multicellular organism. Even trees get cancer (though it is not usually called that).
    PumaMan likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    We know we can induce cancer through smoking and drinking.

    So, this proves that cancer is not neccessarily a natural biological disease is it?
    But you don't have to smoke cigarettes to initiate lung diseases including lung cancer. You only need to live in a smoky environment, like cooking over an open fire or living near one of those volcanoes that seems to do nothing much but constantly makes the surroundings smoky and unpleasant.

    As for drinking. You have to balance one disease causing process against others. You may get cancer after a lifetime of consuming alcoholic drinks. But for most of our agricultural history, it's been a choice between drink the local water and die pretty quickly from cholera, polio and their ugly water-borne friends or drink the alcoholic beer or wine and live long enough to get cancer or liver disease.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    537
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    Here goes...my final conclusion until somebody can show me evidence that cancer is natural disease in all cases?

    We know we can induce cancer through smoking and drinking.

    So, this proves that cancer is not neccessarily a natural biological disease is it?

    Now, we can't get hiv through smoking or drinking, we can't get other diseases by doin the same.

    So, once we know for certain where or how cancer managed to get in to the human (and Animal ) biological system then we can advance.

    Who's got the evidence? either way?

    You can sit here and tell me I'm wrong all day but show me why or tell me why I don't make sense?

    Give me something to work with and not just childish insults.
    Your logic is faulty. The fact we can "induce" cancer by smoking, or by eating or drinking a lot of particular things, does NOT mean that cancer isn't a natural biological disease.

    It most certainly is.

    You would be quite right to say that cancer can be triggered by a number of different things in the environment, and that we have some ability to make decisions about our degree of exposure to these triggers. But that is not at all the same as claiming cancer is man-made in some way.

    Cancer is just one of many operational hazards of being a multicellular organism. Even trees get cancer (though it is not usually called that).
    Yet again, you've misquoted me.

    What a surprise.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,798
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    Yet again, you've misquoted me.
    Can you point out the "misquote"?
    Or are you making that up?
    PumaMan likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    537
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    Yet again, you've misquoted me.
    Can you point out the "misquote"?
    Or are you making that up?
    You have said that I have made 'claims'.... I haven't made any 'Claims' I have asked questions and asked for some kind of evidence/proof (if there is any).
    I thought that is what science and learning is about but obviously not in the case of some.

    Now, I am officially bored.

    You can reply if you like but I wont respond because I will be too busy not caring.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    739
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    I thought that is what science and learning is about.
    You haven't the slightest clue what science is about.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,798
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    You have said that I have made 'claims'
    There's some confusion here.
    On your part.
    You stated that you were misquoted.
    That's not true.

    I haven't made any 'Claims'
    Post #11 -
    I believe we have induced or have contributed to its causes
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah40 View Post
    You have said that I have made 'claims'
    There's some confusion here.
    On your part.
    You stated that you were misquoted.
    That's not true.

    I haven't made any 'Claims'
    Post #11 -
    I believe we have induced or have contributed to its causes
    Yes I think this person is a troll - maybe even one that we've seen before, actually. Nothing else seems able to account for (a) the utter lack of engagement with the science in any of the responses and (b) the jumping at the remotest opportunity to take offence. I have really tried hard to keep the discussion one about science, but there has been no reaction to the points of science I have raised.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Looking for partners for a telepathy experiment.
    By Leszek Luchowski in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: June 11th, 2014, 11:02 AM
  2. Dead Cell Barrier Conjecture(Cancer Research)
    By GreggSchaffter in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: June 17th, 2013, 05:51 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 9th, 2012, 01:31 AM
  4. Creativity and Morality are essential partners?
    By jonourd in forum Art and Culture
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: April 9th, 2009, 05:50 PM
  5. Cancer, gene therapy and cancer stem cells
    By gottspieler in forum Biology
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: December 31st, 2008, 09:58 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •