Leaderboard

To elaborate what I mentioned above, in order for that to happen the selective sweep must be so strong (or mutation rate so low) that any mutations would have to be strongly selected against. Especially as most mutations will be neutral this is highly unlikely in principle, which makes it very unlikely to exist in practice.

Thinking about it, the only system that could face these conditions would likely to be a fairly simple (single-celled) organism with a small genome (close to the minimum viable set of genes) with very small intergenic regions, perhaps growing under nucleic acid limiting conditions (e.g. low phosphate conditions) in conjunction with other conditions to which the genome is exquisitely tuned to. But again, setting that up artificially would be quite a task. Also considering that there are also mutations that are biochemically neutral (redundant codons) or functionally neutral (e.g. certain regions within proteins) I really doubt that such a condition even exists even in principle. Extrapolating that to a complex organism would be even more problematic.

Brown people. It means brown people.

You see the marker to be a bit wavy? Usually that happens when the comb is not pulled out smoothly, creating a jagged edge (can also caused by incomplete polymerization).

Well, no. Facts aren't wrong, by definition. It's Truth that is subjective, and seems to change between peoples, cultures, and other arbitrary groups. That's why I say truth isn't what you should be looking for, even though so many people put such store in it. Truth has too much emotion attached to it for it to be very useful in describing the natural world. Here's a fact for you. The Big Bang Theory doesn't leave any questions about what happened before, because the model for it doesn't start until slightly after inflation began. It's not a creation theory. It's a theory about the development and evolution of the universe from a previous extremely hot and dense state. Also, I'm fairly certain you don't know what it means to "lack the mathematics of how it always existed". How can we know anything about what happened BEFORE the universe was in such a hot, dense state? If you crushed the Empire State Building down to the size of a pea, how would you go about figuring out what it was before it was made so small and dense and hot? I think you're wrong also about the Truth keeping us searching. Think about it. What do you do when you think you've found an answer to something? You stop looking. That's why theory is more powerful, because we always refine and update our theories to be the best current explanations. I think you have a very emotional, romantic view of the Truth, and it's clouding your reason.

Just my opinion for what it is worth I have always thought studiot to be very patient and thorough when explaining science stuff to people that come here for home work advice and things. He unintentionally rubbed me up the wrong way when we first met (he will not know this until now) and I have never been a fan of the "I gave you +1 for that", which seems to have caught on, but I can't fault his enthusiasm or the work he seems to put into helping people when they ask scientific questions. I am not a fan of the premise of this thread, but he seems pretty knowledgeable and helpful to me and seems to bend over backwards to explain things to people that ask for help. I can tell from his posts that his general knowledge of basic chemistry and physics are way better than mine... and I have a PhD in the subjects. Just my 'worthless' opinion though. He is a good egg in my book. I wouldn't have commented but the suggestion that he is 'unproductive' on the forum doesn't ring right to me. Regards, P.

Is this the Chinese salamander thing that was on the radio yesterday? They said it hadn't changed for over a hundred million years. I do not know... I might guess at it being because they are perfectly evolved as they are to survive in the environment they are in? There design has been good enough to avoid becoming extinct over that time. I think they are good hiders and must be pretty resilient. Presumably any mutations were not improvements to their on-going survival. .... I was trying to think of an axolotl pun to sign of on but I couldn't quite make it work. Well 'that's all I gotl'.

Salud, amor, y pesetas, y el tiempo para gastarlos.

I think there is a bit of a disconnect between upper college level and first-year/high school knowledge. The issue is that we got tons of interactions mapped but have not built a simple narrative out of it yet, that can be easily conveyed to students. In addition, fluorescence live imaging and similar techniques have been around for a very long time, but since they are tricky (and often expensive) courses usually only provide hands-on in upper level courses (and sometimes only at the graduate level). Of course, there have been technical improvements (such as new variants of superresolution microscopy), but I think the barrier between textbook and research is less a technical one, but rather the difficulty to create large narratives if bits and pieces are not resolved yet. I.e. we know there are plenty of interactions and various paper have found either some of the mechanisms or figured out that certain disruptions could lead to physiological defects. However, unifying and synthesizing the data is still a bit on the tricky side. If someone intends to re-write a new textbook, it is would be either one of the hideous review-style books, which are not helpful to students (and only sometimes helpful for researchers) or it would be simplified to such a degree that it would not really add anything, except to state that there is more to it. This is not to be a criticism of teachers (regardless of level), of course. Considering the pace of biological sciences almost all college courses are out of date to various degrees. Unless one intends to build lectures entirely from recent lit (which is basically impossible for the fundamental courses) one have to rely on imperfect narratives and then "rebuild" the student's knowledge for certain elements, once they become relevant. What I do not like that much is the title of these reports, which like to pretend that every incremental improvement of our knowledge is the reveal of some big secret that no one was aware of. These, of course, are just another form of narrative, but I do not think that this is an appropriate description of the actual research progress.

I have read the OP of the thread under discussion a number of times as well as the rest of the thread. For what it's worth (probably not a lot) this is my take on it. The OP clearly has major difficulties with English. This is unfortunate since it detracts sigificantly from their attempt to get across a clear message. More than that it can create the impression, consciously or unconsciously sensed, that the poster is not the sharpest knife in the draw. At one end of the possibilities I see a deluded person, probably not well versed in science, but knowing enough (poorly understood and often wrong) to think they have had a revolutionary idea. At the other end is an individual who has had a relevant insight to a plausible renewable energy resource. They have likely been seriously overoptimistic about its potential, but yet is may offer a genuine benefit. In either case they lack the resources to construct a protype and fear loss of control if they publish details. The quality of their English makes it impractical to distinguish between these possibilites, though past experience might suggest the first is the more likely. In neither case was there much point in continuing the thread, but I sympathise to a degree with the point made by Studiot that the poster could have been treated with a little more courtesy. Obviously, all of the foregoing is an opinion and can certainly be disregarded, though I've always found it productive to reflect on all opinions Again, these are opinions made lacking all of the facts of the matter. We are not going to post the contents of private messages, but I can say that we were willing to reopen the thread IF we believed that they were willing to discuss anything. They weren’t, and so the thread stayed closed. It wasn’t a langauge barrier issue, it was an issue of the OP not wanting to give any details whatsoever about their alleged discovery. What point is there in allowing a thread (on a science forum) wherein the OP has absolutely no intention of discussing the scientific aspect of their ideas?

I can understand how it may have seemed hasty without the added perspective of what was happening behind the scenes. As mentioned a few times already, after closing it staff discussed the closure and the member was contacted. We considered reopening the thread if we believed the member was hoping to participate in genuine discussion. They weren’t (as per PM), so it stayed closed. It wasn’t a spur of the moment decision, nor was it irreversible. I’m not sure what else there is to say on the matter. We take these things case by case, and a lot of staff discussions and interactions with members are not made public. That isn’t going to change. SFN is not a conspiracy forum, nor is it a make up whatever BS you want and call it science forum. We give a lot of leeway to people to post and defend their ideas, but we have to draw a line somewhere. If we identify early on that a poster has absolutely no interest in participating in rational discussion, why should we let it continue? That runs completely counterintuitive to the spirit of the forum, and has no place here.

Ten oz said: "It is terrifying for the nation that we have a President who is purposefully scheming to keep Congress dysfunctional for long as possible. Just does thing to intentionally waste as much of everyones time as humanly possible. Yet it is a brilliant strategy for Trump personally because it forces his opposition to expend time, resources, political capital, and etc fighting meaningless battles." I remember someone suggesting you give him money for his damn wall, it would be cheaper in the long run. Then fight the battles which have significance ( i.e. get D Trump impeached and out of office ). And then you won't have to worry about actually building it. I'm glad you finally came around to realizing that D Trump is 'playing' Congress. Oh, and the original question by Nod2003 was: "are any DEMOCRATS advocating removing those sections of wall which already exist?" Not declared Democratic candidates, Presidential candidates, or what have you; nor hypothetical or declared policy. JCM answered the question factually; INow did not. You and INow then went on a spin campaign about declaring candidacy, chances of winning, etc., when you could have simply said "You are right, JCM" ( and it wouldn't have dragged on, INow )

I have a solution to all this; How about Hyper reprimends whichever mod locked the thread, then I'll get really stoned over the next weekend and studiot & sensei will be forced to address all the ridiculous crap that comes to my mind for hours in a specially created thread for it.

Ooooh now the incomplete sarcasms come out. Lol. To whom it concerns: I've been posting random questions, maybe half dozen a year, if that, on forums since 2002ish. It is almost always the same toxic culture of bad debate skills. Even when I'm not asking for a debate. I've not seen anywhere that an internet forum is translated or defined as "be a cyber punkass". I'm so sorry if you're lonely but realize not everyone is looking to engage with toxic behavior. If anyone knows of an online source that has calculated a days (24 hours) heavy rainfall volume, across the globe, I'd like to reference that, even if you're the calculator. I would think the calculation could employ a record rainfall figure, as in heaviest volumes ever dumped over any area and then applied globally. Thanks!

Sorry but I keep rephrasing the question to possibly get it through some thick heads, so then maybe the question would be answered without so much extraneous info and opinions. Lol These are reworded again, below. What I'm looking for: 1. The volume of heaviest rainfall known to man for a specific time period (for example, an hour, a minute) rounded to 3 decimal points. 2. The volume needed to fill current Earth surface to 22' (or 6.706 meters) above highest known crust elevation (which seems to be Mt Everest). And possibly using a compared average elevation such as the 2nd reply to this question below presents? But it's sources are unknown... https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-average-elevation-of-Earth-above-the-ocean-including-land-area-below-sea-level-What-is-the-atmospheric-pressure-at-that-elevation 3. The volume of water required from subterranean source to make up the difference the 40 days/nights of rain would not drop onto the world. The water is available on and in the Earth, so it seems from recent discoveries. That's assumed available, but how is another day's topic. Thanks.

That is sweet studiot. I envy and encourage your commitment to getting things right. I have no idea what the people of science would have done without this 3 page long thread about fighting for flying power plant rights. Thank you again. You will be rewarded with crackpots praising you on the forum and you will be reimbursed with plums. PS. Do you think you could stop the uselessness and start being productive on the forum? I expect this from you since you are part of the members which are supposed to be productive. I'm saying this from a point of view of someone who wants to learn because thats what I'm here for, this is a science forum not a crackpot convert forum if you haven't noticed.