druS

When I first glanced through this thread I scoffed. Misunderstanding about the meaning of genome. But I've been thinking about ploidy and wondering if my response is more about the genomes and chromosome systems that I am most familiar with. From Wiki on ploidy: Many animals are uniformly diploid, though polyploidy is common in invertebrates, reptiles, and amphibians. In some species, ploidy varies between individuals of the same species (as in the social insects), and in others entire tissues and organ systems may be polyploid despite the rest of the body being diploid (as in the mammalian liver). For many organisms, especially plants and fungi, changes in ploidy level between generations are major drivers of speciation. Does this put some reality back in the OP? Thanks in advance.

So the coating is the protein capsid? (In an earlier post of mine there was a spell correct that changed the word). In west and south coast Aus, the weather is drier and less humidity. On the east coast and the north it is the opposite - but we still get seasonal flu. Either way we can only expect approaching winter to impact while approaching su8mmer in the northern hemisphere hopefully gains benefits. Fascinating what we do and don't know. Zapatos - from what we are hearing the symptoms could be symptoms of many many things of which only one is CV-19. FWIW some statistics in NSW Australia - reference: https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/news/Pages/20200316_02.aspx Total number of tests: 26 964 Tested and excluded: 25 511 Under investigation: 1 282 Confirmed positive: 171 Every country will have a different experience based on how accurate they are with who gets tested, and where they are on the curve. But as above under 1% confirmed approx 95% excluded.

Understand the strategy. What I am not seeing is the social reality here in Australia, and i suspect that Australia has handled the matter better than many countries. There is an expectation that Summer will see a seasonal die-back in transmission, but here in Australia ALL of CV-19 cases have been contracted in Summer (or the summer shoulder). See rather than a natural die-back we would anticipate an increase in transmission. Currently a lot of thinking is short term eg the recent border closure (term used for convenience, you can enter but must voluntarily isolate for two weeks on arrival) and people are saying "just give it a couple of weeks to settle so we can understand what we are dealing with". But we should know that while a vaccine can be expected it will be 12 to 18 months. On the shorter scale it means availability of vaccine in the approaching winter of 2021, or on the longer scale deep into that winter. In the mean time we seem to be saying that slowing CV-19 down requires quite anti-social measures on more than a short term basis. CharonY, are you up to expanding on this a little? For background I have just completed my first biology unit in a science degree where one module was molecular biology. Enough knowledge to pretend to be dangerous lol. From recollection, a virus is a small chain of either single or double strand DNA or RNA. Am I correct in reading CV-19 as single strand DNA? The Virus has a consisting created by proteins (I had thought a single species but apparently not). And possibly some borrowed membrane from the host cell. Where does it pick up the polymerase?

All good. I do appreciate the response. On human behaviour for a second transmission - presuming that only a small percentage of the population was exposed in the initial transmission, and no vaccine - how is it controlled by social behaviour. Sorry that seems daft. The first time round China "missed" it early, then got it under control with draconian measures. The current advice is wash hands, social distancing, self isolation, etc. But those measu4res during the first transmission (here is Australia anyway), don't seem to be expected to achieve more than "slow it down". Does it mean that little short of draconian measures are enough until a vaccine is available?

Odd, looks like you are taking issue with the tone of your own response? "How is this a question for you" - FWIW, it is simple curiosity, they seemed to have determine stability (lack of mutation) quite early, other corona virus mutate do they not? Surely developing vaccines is a more challenging task if the virus is changing.

Like Externet I am curious on a couple of issues: How do you "kill" a virus given that they are not life forms? Why would a period of time render them redundant? Is not the common cold a corona virus? Have they not been trying to develop a vaccine for decades? If that is the case, what is the basis for confidence that a solution (vaccine) to Covid-19 will be achieved in months? (Given this needs to happen for a vaccine to be available in 12-18 months). I have read somewhere that Covid-19 is not mutating (rapidly like flu anyway). How do they determine that? China looks well to have caught the situation. I understand that secondary transmissions can be expected in epidemics and indeed I see that this happened for Spanish flu. How does that work and what is the likelihood in, say China (but anywhere really), while there is no vaccine? What rate of exposure and adaptive immune response is required in a population to have the matter under control? I refer here to vaccines for things like measles which require a certain level of immunisation to control the disease - which is not 100%. Cheers

I had thought that said there was increasingly a will to investigate quantum foundations with broader thinking than the Copenhagen interpretation. Everett inspired many worlds interpretation has followers, there is even some work, I understand, on pilot-wave interpretation. I'm unsure on what developments in quantum holography and quantum information provide but it is further work in the area. Clearly the body of knowledge that is quantum mechanics, remains highly precise and successful, but this hasn't meant that quantum foundations are not being further considered. Examples: Einstein's Unfinished Revolution, The search for what lies beyond the quantum: Lee Smolin What Is Real? The unfinished quest for the meaning of quantum physiscs: Adam Beckler Note to the OP - this is an easily read and digested run through the topic. Something Deeply Hidden, Quantum worlds and the emergence of spacetime: Sean Carroll [Admit to having not read this yet, though I have listened to his podcasts and most of his available lectures] As an interested non-expert (I am working on it!) it appears that there is plenty happening in an areas previously considered effectively settled.

Out of interest to the greater wisdom here - I would not expect that sin of all angles can be defined exactly. Perhaps using limits/infetesimals?

This. Lots.

Apologies in advance on being a little disconnected in my thinking here - emergence does that to straight thinking I find. I've not been convinced by the typical definitions of life trotted out for students (such as myself). As you say CharonY they tend to describe features of life as we understand it here on earth. [That in itself is somewhat incomplete.] Which is somewhat limiting. I'm also not convinced of definitions which exclude virus ( on the basis of not passing on hereditary information, and I guess, homeostasis/metabolism). It seems to me that if we find an extraterrestrial virus scientists would not just be excited but would be reconsidering those definitions. I can imagine an electronic AI that I would be tempted to call life, that wouldn't meet any currently recognised definition. Suggests a potential problem with the definition. The topic of emergence borders on the metaphysical but that does not seem to bother theoretical physicists at all. Though Science Philosophers seem to mostly to start with a position of the topic being junk. There is a boundary being used, especially in areas such as quantum foundations, that does not seem to robustly fit Popper. Emergence seems based on "well, we can't rule it out!", rather than any deeper foundation. I find it hard to simply accept as tabled. On another note, the earlier OP, seemed without stating it to be talking not just life but conscious life - which is another step entirely.

allison, if that doesn't seem clear. The X and Y chromosomes kick off hormosomal changes such as puberty. The hormones involved can then influence genes that are not themselves located on the X or Y chromosomes. Hence "sex influenced". "Sex Linked" means that the gene is physically on the X or Y chromosomes. Inheritance can be quite distinct with sex linked genes, as the Y chromosome is MUCH smaller than the X chromosome and is missing many genes that are on the X chromosome. (While there are Y linked allelles, the X linked can be more obvious). Many X linked genes have no corresponding gene on the Y chromosome. So inheritance is entirely determined by the X chromosome for sons with those X linked genotypes. Hope that helps.

Not sure on thison your specific query, but to ignite the fuel has to be gasified. It is the gas that then ignites. There is a definite step process happening for fire.

That’s exactly the point Dagl1. If you want quick knowledge start with a model organism because we already know a great amount about them.

Fist year biology assignment. It isn't really about the topic itself but about: experience with literature search Scientific writing and referencing Must include 3 references to peer reviewed journals Technically correct scientific terminology The topic is Cas-9, I have chosen agriculture. The assignment needs to provide a background to gene editing, outline of Cas-9, outline of beneficial work, then ethical considerations. I can post the whole assignment if needed. For now my challenge is fine tuning database search between information overload to nothing when I want specifics. I'm doing fine getting an overview of the topic so far, but a refined search is failing me. Those specifics (at the moment) are trying to find seminal journal articles for: 1. Repeat palindromes found in halophiles - by Francisco Majica 2. Subsequent purpose discovered (viral defence) by Horvarth. If I can nail this, then I'm on to Talen, ZFN, embryonic stem cells and pluripotent ES (my term not scientific) Cheers Dru

Not really. Try engaging with Studiot. If you take his guidance and have considered his posts, you are already half way there.

y = m.x + c m is the slope. c is the y axis intercept How you get there depends on the starting information.

Absolutely. Occasionally there are posts on here that lead to immediate "aha" and my connection with science kicks up a gear. This is one. Thanks Mordred

Just finished Adam Becker's "What is Real? the unfinished quest for the meaning of quantum physics" - a history of quantum foundations. Well researched, well written and I at least found it thought provoking. Glad I read it.

Thanks Strange, yes I meant ST not SR. I had understood that in principal the energies required to test ST are impracticable. IS that just too simple an approach in terms of dumbing down the theory for the populace? Otherwise the difference between untestable and unfalsifiable seem hazy. It starts feeling like pure math (presuming the axioms stack up) rather than science at that point.

Question from a novice to the brains trust here. It has been said (sorry I cant quote the source but variously and probably pop science) not simply that SR hasn't been proven, but that it is unfalsefiable. That is not a subtle difference. I have also seen Sean Carroll state it doesn't matter, that it is unfalsefiable for now but someone will resolve it at some stage. But that does seem to contradict one of the basic tenets of science - leading the topic into either math or conjecture.

RIP Gell-Mann. We lose a great scientist here.

As someone very very early on this journey and doing it very late - I'd appreciate if you could expand on this. My personal experience is that my curiosities are too broad and defining a study course through my interests, and doing this somewhat efficiently through how quickly I can gain qualifications, well these things are diametrically opposed. I am fascinated by the concept of Masters v PhD. I get the different levels of academic interest/ability but there are always going to be details that sit around this. A M Science should not EVER be sneezed at.

I love this place. Completely unexpected but occasionally something goes "Hell, what happened there? It's something right on the tip of my ability to understand." An issue then to drive study. swansont, thanks. But to be fair, rock on Itoero. If you weren't making noise mate, I'd be missing these opportunities. Love this community, thanks all.

I'd approach this more from engineering, or perhaps physics. The average set of lungs holds approx 6l and when you fully breathe out there is a residual approx 1.5l So if you exhale a contaminant mixing inside your lungs there is only 1/4 of it left - at the same concentration so you are still consuming it the same way. Inhale non contaminated air and it has been diluted to 1/4. Note though that the whole time your lungs are consuming whatever it is.

Yes appreciate it.