Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 04/28/24 in all areas

  1. Yes I suppose that must be it. I was thinking of anaerobic bacteria that use alternative chemistry as fuel, like sulphate reducing or iron reducing bacteria.
    1 point
  2. Substrate-level phosphorylation? Quicker and less efficient than oxidative phosphorylation. A fermentation process, like in yeast and some bacteria. Oh, and erythrocytes, which have no mito.
    1 point
  3. From what I have just quickly read, these seem to have independently evolved, from mitochondria, several times in different species. So an example of convergent evolution, enabling their possessors to adapt to anoxic environments. What remains unclear to me is what the energy source is for their respiration. The flow charts I have seen seem to show pyruvate as the input, presumably from glycolysis. So that suggests glycolysis as usual, followed by some alternative to the Krebs cycle that does not require oxygen. Maybe someone can explain how this works. They don’t seem to be sulphate-reducing or anything like that.
    1 point
  4. When Adolph Eichmann defended his actions this way, the jury was oddly unpersuaded. Generally "just doing his job" is not seen as adequate justification for mass murder of civilians. Anyway, you are making an equivalence between combatants and civilians. Many people, as well as the Geneva convention, view this differently. I don't doubt your morality, just saying this thread invites people to reflect on where those moral principles lead, if applied by everyone. Really? That was an element of Truman's argument. Kill 150,000 Japanese with an A-bomb, save hundreds of thousands more Japanese and Allied soldiers lives. We were discussing that earlier, and some were dubious that was what would happen. And the reasoning holds water if we are looking at a contemplated thermonuclear exchange where parties either a) choose not to use nukes and lose hundreds of thousands of soldiers, or b) choose to use nukes and billions of innocent people die, due to knock-on effects from destroyed agriculture, nuclear winter, radioactive contamination, etc. Call me crazy, but the loss of life scenario where soldiers die but we don't wipe out a large percent of the human race seems the better one.
    1 point
  5. According to "The Daily Show", "Trump partnering with god to sell bibles can only mean one thing; soon god will be bankrupt and sentenced to 3 years in jail." 😀
    1 point
  6. ! Moderator Note No optics, and chock full of unsubstantiated musings. The opposite of what I said. Don’t bring this up again.
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.