StringJunky

Thanks for that GDG. With your words, I checked out to see if the action of telomerase occured in trees and as luck would have it, it does. The authors of this research suggest it may help to explain the longevity of trees like the Bristlecone Pine. Abstract here: " Normal somatic cells have a finite replicative capacity. With each cell division, telomeres (the physical ends of linear chromosomes) progressively shorten until they reach a critical length, at which point the cells enter replicative senescence. Some cells maintain telomere length by the action of the telomerase enzyme. The bristlecone pine, Pinus longaeva, is the oldest known living eukaryotic organism, with the oldest on record turning 4770 years old in 2005. To determine what changes occur, if any, in telomere length and telomerase activity with age, and what roles, if any, telomere length and telomerase activity may play in contributing to the increased life-span and longevity of P. longaeva with age, as well as in other tree species of various life-spans, we undertook a detailed investigation of telomere length and telomerase activity in such trees. The results from this study support the hypothesis that both increased telomere length and telomerase activity may directly/indirectly contribute to the increased life-span and longevity evident in long-lived pine trees (2000-5000 year life-spans) compared to medium-lived (400-500 year life-span) and short-lived (100-200 year life-span) pine trees, as well as in P. longaeva with age." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16034678

Mooeypoo: I hope it is clear from my earlier posts my personal opinion on this matter but I am just highlighting one or two realities...I am minded to take the position of Devil's Advocate sometimes to see how an opposing view may stand up. I hope it helps to ultimately strengthen the case not weaken it.

This was a reason I used in post 114,: "Afterthought: A relevant secular reason against gay people marrying is that more people don't like the idea...this is democracy in action...it is the will of the majority,,,for now." This is similar to yours but iNow shot it down with (post 115): "We are a constitutional republic, with constitutional guarantees of equality for all citizens... regardless if they are part of a minority or a majority. We are not a direct democracy, so the "tyranny of the majority" opinion, I contend, is not relevant whatsoever. The only way that opinion becomes relevant is if there is a valid secular reason for the opposition/differential conferment of privileges and benefits (as per the Enumeration Clause of the first amendment, the Equal Protections Clause of the 14th amendment, and the "Lemon Test" put forth by the SCOTUS in Lemon v. Kurtzman [1971])." I would contend that our thought is relevant , because it is the reality, but the present state of affairs in the US is not justified A definition: Relevant....having a bearing on or connection with the subject at issue; Justified... To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid: The Pro Rights camp are using a word with the wrong definition in mind...an important semantic error, since it can only confuse any opposition who may be working on the correct definition and is a principal word used in the original post. Let's make sure we have the same meanings in mind.

Since you put it like that Severian, yes, my interpretation of the statistic was ill-considered. Would this 'genetic drift' be a strong factor at all in the higher organisms (above bacteria, fungi, plants where reproductive success is a random, precarious event)? I can see this idea being applicable to this order of organisms but less so in the higher organisms where there is an element of reproductive bias ie have more control over who, where and how they reproduce to varying degrees. I've ony read a Wiki on this idea of genetic drift and responded to you, but will look into it further. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedSince you put it like that Severian, yes, my interpretation of the statistic was ill-considered. Would this 'genetic drift' be a strong factor at all in the higher organisms (above bacteria, fungi, plants where reproductive success is a random, precarious event)? I can see this idea being applicable to this order of organisms but less so in the higher organisms where there is an element of reproductive bias ie have more control over who, where and how they reproduce to varying degrees. I've ony read a Wiki on this idea of genetic drift and responded to you, but will look into it further.

My perception of the situation here is that the Islamic religion is trying to get more influence here like having Sharia courts to deal with problems within the Muslim communities eg marriage breakdowns...which is allowed but is purely voluntary on the part of the participants and cannot supersede English Law. The way I see it here is that religious influence (like the bishops in the Lords) tempers things like controversial issues in scientific research and causes the secular elements to pause and reflect on the human consequences...the end result being that we end with more robust and considerate Laws and Procedures because they are minding the 'moral' side of any debate... without any ranting attitude. They may slow progress down a bit but this is not necessarily a bad thing. The Church of England guys in Parliament are a mellow bunch compared to their American counterparts. But now you mention it,; I shall look again!

It is a fact of life that we are not all born equal. I know what you mean when some people here look like geniuses, but they are most likely a along way down the road of their respective interests compared to you, hence, the apparent disparity between you and them...they have done their time. Intelligence is relative. No matter how clever you are (including some of the 'smart' ones here) there is always someone 'out there' capable of making you feel intellectually inadequate....it is a common experience for everyone. If you can fulfil your potential...that is as much as you can ask of yourself. Once you have done this you can be content. As a matter of fact, to pinch some of iNOW's words, most of the Geniuses in history did not bring about acts of brilliance spontaneously, they achieved through Effort, Diligence and Patience...it is no different for them!

It would appear that the UK statistics for people accepting Evolution iis not much better than the US...just under half. Only half the people in that half believe it's 'definitely' true...the rest of that half say it's 'probably' true.....pathetic! The irony of it all is that the UK does not have a sizable active religious congregation like in the US, I think we are a largely agnostic nation. I put it down to ignorance resulting from the poor take up and promotion of science in education. A comment to this survey I found amusing and to the point about this subject: " It says more about the quality of British education than about evolution. Evolution is a fact, just like gravity. If you don't understand that then either you have had a lousy education or are very thick. No other options exist. So in that sense the survey makes sense: the headline can then read: Half of Britons are thick or have had a lousy education." http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/feb/01/evolution-darwin-survey-creationism

QUOTE=dr.syntax;514629]I`ve been wondering just how is it thier DNA does not deteriate like ours and most other organisms do. That stuff about meristematic cells being like animal stem cells seems a big part of the answer. These are important research topics. Wouldn`t it be nice to have such a system as a part of our makeup. Thank for this informative answer. ...Dr.Syntax When a DNA molecule divides, it is making a copy of itself. Their is an upper limit to the number of times that the information encoded in it can be transferred through each successive generation, before pathological (life threatening) effects begin to occur, due to the original information becoming corrupted ie each successive division results in a small part of the DNA molecule being incompletely copied and ,hence, the 'instructions' slowly fade with time. An analogy (parallel example) to this process would be to take a photograph, and photograph that photograph and so on. Eventually, details (information) would start to disappear. My guess is that the rate at which cell division occurs in long-lived trees is much slower than in shorter-lived organisms, and as a result, takes longer to reach the aforementioned upper limit. Also, don't forget, things like Giant Redwoods have long periods of dormancy in winter when cellular activity is low....a kind of suspended animation! The way these trees utilise aptosis (programmed cell death) may also be a factor in their longevity, but I don't know much about this, When the leaves fall in the Autumn is an example of this, but it also occurs at the single-cell level e.g. when a cell's DNA becomes damaged, it can self-destruct via specialized internal machinery. Our liver has the ability to regenerate back to full size even if you lose up to 75% of it...this may be a function of stem cells: " One of the defining features of the liver is the capacity to maintain a constant size despite injury. Although the precise molecular signals involved in the maintenance of liver size are not completely known, it is clear that the liver delicately balances regeneration with overgrowth. Mammals, for example, can survive surgical removal of up to 75% of the total liver mass. Within 1 week after liver resection, the total number of liver cells is restored. Moreover, liver overgrowth can be induced by a variety of signals, including hepatocyte growth factor or peroxisome proliferators; the liver quickly returns to its normal size when the proliferative signal is removed. The extent to which liver stem cells mediate liver regeneration has been hotly debated. .................................." John P. Lynch and David C. Metz, Section Editors http://www.gastrojournal.org/article/S0016-5085(09)00818-X/abstract As far as I know, the liver is the only organ in our body that has this plant-like ability to regrow itself. It would be great if the major parts of our bodies could regenerate themselves, like the liver , but it would greatly exacerbate the burgeoning population problem if our lifespan was increased to that of a Giant Redwood!

I found this abstract which goes some way to explain the longevity of trees: "A long life multiplies a tree's reproductive opportunities, thus increasing its fitness. Therefore, characteristics that prolong life should be naturally selected. Longevity in trees is achieved by means of numerous behaviors and characteristics, some of which are unique to trees. These include the retention of stem-cell-like meristematic cells after each growth cycle; the ability to replace non-vigorous, lost, or damaged organs, both above and below ground, in the presence or absence of trauma; a sectored vascular system that allows part of a tree to survive where a whole one cannot; formation of clones; a mechanical structure that can react to forces tending to de-optimize it; a hormonal control system that coordinates the above behaviors; and synthesis of defensive compounds." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12362893 Meristematic cells are like animal stem cells, found at the growth points, that are undifferentiated and can grow in to any cell required at the time...a great survival tactic! As an example, if a tree gets burnt down parts of the rootball, below ground, will have these meristematic cells and will turn into a new apical (central leader) stem which becomes a new tree above the ground.

A case was fought in the UK courts in 2006 by 2 lesbians who were legally married in Canada but wanted their status recognized in England as 'married' and not 'civil union' which is the case here. This was the presiding judge's conclusion: The High Court announced its judgement on 31 July 2006, finding that the marriage would continue to be recognised as a civil partnership in England and Wales, but not as a marriage.[2] In handing down his ruling, the President of the Family Division, Sir Mark Potter, gave as his reason that "Abiding single sex relationships are in no way inferior, nor does English Law suggest that they are by according them recognition under the name of civil partnership." [3]. and that marriage was an "age-old institution" which, he suggested, was by "longstanding definition and acceptance" a relationship between a man and a woman. He described this as an "insurmountable hurdle" to the couple's case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_Kingdom What ap;peared to me to be nothing more than a semantic argument obviously runs deeper than that, in both the UK and the USA. Thinking about this, being pragmatic, given that the idea of lesbian and gay marriage is a novel one for both our societies, would it not be best for the L&G (lesbisan and gay) community to just enjoy the fruits of what they have already achieved, and just sit tight, for now, until society in general catches up philosophically,..the concept of gay civil union relationships will be normalized through everday exposure. After some years, the idea of same sex marriage will not seem so difficult in the minds of the majority of heterosexual people ie it becomes a natural progression and all the social and legal rights conferred on a heterosexual 'married' couple will transfer to them eventually. The Law tends to reflect the prevailing public consensus, in matters like this, and the judge in the above article was most likely echoing this...that's why I say it is a waiting game for change. I would think US judges work on the same line of thought when issuing judgements of this nature that have social consequences. It's a case of Evolution not Revolution. To corrupt a famous phrase: Viva la Evolution! Afterthought: A relevant secular reason against gay people marrying is that more people don't like the idea...this is democracy in action...it is the will of the majority,,,for now.

iNOW and JiillSwift: I think the reason why the people here can't give a definitive secular reason against your stance is because there is no historical precedent anywhere for gay marriages as a norm, or meaningful statistical data yet to refer to......it is too new. Nobody knows what the consequences will be on our society and in this unknown, lies the fear or concern alluded to by some here. Society is moving into new territory. Because there is currently, insufficient, statistically meaningful data or experience at the societal level, across any decent timeline, nobody can factually argue either way...., without any data about long-term behaviour patterns and social costs. it's all opinion here and the most convincing one wins the argument...this doesn't necessarily make it right. I think we might need a couple of generations to observe and understand the real outcome for society. I have no strong opinion on this matter but just wanted to point this out in the interest of some balance.

My comments were intended to be interpreted with respect to forum etiquette, but I note and accept your appraisal. I am relatively new to forums and it is a challenge to cover all my bases, hence my lack of precision! I stand corrected on my mistaken attribution to Voltaire...it would have been better to have said: inspired by Voltaire.

" Disagreement is to be protected and preserved, and that's a two-way street." - Pangloss This can be read as: " I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"- Voltaire These are both statements relating (in my mind) to the definition of a democracy....disagreement is a healthy component of it. Intolerance is a component of an autocracy. Should we not cherish disagreement.....is it not the primary fuel that drives this forum and makes it interesting? It saddens me to see threads closed because I often see the most interesting reading when opposing sides each have their backs against the wall and each with their wits at maximum. If a person in a thread becomes intransigent or stubborn to a reasonable argument, without a plausible rebuff, they should be asked to take 'time out' from that thread and come back in, if and when they have a more plausible response, rather than penalising EVERYBODY and shutting down the thread. I think it would be a better idea to remove the offending person(s) not the argument...Another poster may come in, at a later time, with a thoughful counter-argument (even contrary to the standard view) that is worth reading about. I also think sarcasm has no place in a forum of this nature and the 'roll eyes' (sarcastic) emoticon should be removed from the list to discourage it's use. A definition: sar·casm (särkzm) n. 1. A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound. 2. A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule. It is the lowest form of humour. "I'm still unclear about what you mean by "bullying behavior," and where or when this has happened."- iNOW 1.Forcefully imposing ones intellectual might in the face of another's innocent ignorance, such that they are lost, and cannot respond in like language...deliberately not speaking in the 'language' or understanding of the listener in such a way as to belittle them. . 2.Expressing ridicule. 3.Sarcasm These are all forms of bullying. In private, between individuals, cutting or negative comments, towards another, is not necessarily bullying but in the public arena of a forum... it is. A definition: "The act of intimidating a weaker person to make them do or think something." (emphasis is mine)

You have most likely pressed a key combination, whilst playing your game, that rotates the display. Try pressing CTRL+ ALT and one of the direction arrow keys. Failing this go into your graphics card's control panel and look for a 'rotate display' option.. it might be under the Advanced Settings tab. Failing this you could use the System Restore option in Windows and find a date to restore it back to just before it happened. Failing this you could uninstall the graphics driver and reinstall it. EDIT: If you go into the Windows Control Panel, select 'classic view' and you should see an icon for your graphics card where you should be able to access it's control panel..

I worked for a time in an egg processing factory. Visuaiise a conveyor 3ft wide and 30ft long with mixed, unsorted eggs passing down it. Perpendicular to this conveyor at equal intervals, running underneath there are 12 lanes to which a specified egg size would drop into and be deposited into an egg box or tray waiting underneath. At one end of each of these lanes is a denester where the egg boxes are loaded and at the other end is the packing person who puts them in to the boxes and pushes the filled box on to a conveyor and resumes to the next one. It is the job of the packer to inform the person on the denesters when they are down to the last three boxes of that run so the other side has time to change to the next order (Sainsbury's' Tesco's etc). On this particular day I was on the denesters loading them. Looking over to the other side a packer shouted "Last 3 boxes". I thought to myself, in jest: 'Last fifty boxes' and almost immediately a packer on the other side shouted, with a big grin on his face...." Last FIFTY boxes!" The odds on this happening felt, at the time, so improbable that involuntary telepathy was the only explanation. I put it down to incredible coincidence as this experience has not been repeated since. It was a real 'WOW' moment though!

" What do atoms have to do with life? That is my question."- Eric If life can exist distinct from atoms, as you propose, how do we detect this atom-free life form...do i feel a sense of deja vu...going round in circles? Science can only work from a foundation of verifiable evidence and standard methodology that can be repeated by anyone with the necessary knowledge. With this in mind, no one has ever discovered a 'living system' existing separately from atoms...have they? The point of the video that I linked you to was to help you see how life could begin. Can't you see that starting from a few simple reactions and interactions, these discrete molecular 'entities', gradually over time, build up increasingly complex layers of cyclical biochemical processes? There comes a point in this evolution where all the criteria that we define a living organism by, is fulfilled...at this point we can call it 'life' Outside of this forum we all hold our own beliefs, some of us may even be religious, but within the arena of this forum, which only builds on what is known, we must leave our unsubstantiated beliefs at home...I think this idea of yours is one of those. Scientific research tries to make hypotheses and evidence fit to a central body of knowledge, like adding a new piece to an imaginary incomplete bridge, on the side of a sheer cliff, that extends and leads us further into the unknown. Would you trust your belief in helping to build this bridge?

Three old dears overheard talking to each other: - " It's windy" - " No it's not, it's Thursday" - " So am I...let's go and have a cup of tea

These are the UMTS/HSPDA frequencies for broadband enabled phones. GSM can only handle voice, text and the original text based internet service as it has insufficient data bandwidth for transferring movies and images. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMTS_frequency_bands

When we can change the the laws of Nature and the Universe at will or evolve, then we might have telepathic abilities ....in a million years or three. Seriously, notions and arguments for telepathic ability start from the premise of belief and not as a result of direct observation under scientific conditions with results that are statistically meaningful... as yet. Until this happens, in the eyes of mainstream science, it does not exist. That's the most accommodating science can be, at the moment, to the idea of telepathy. It is my opinion that much of this desire for paranormal phenomena to exist and the idea of spiritual selves etc stems from a deep dissatisfaction with what we have, what we know and our impending mortality ie ...there's GOT to be more than this. They appear to be symptoms of over- imaginative desperation. It is not my intent to ridicule since even the most rational and logical amongst us hold dear at least one irrational or illogical belief, outside the field of scientific debate. For instance, I won't catch a fish if I get my weighing scales out ready for it in anticipation!

That's ok....my pleasure. If you look at this immense flock of starlings closely, you will see the effect as a dark wave passing through the flock as they sequentially change direction...you might need to watch it a couple of times first to follow what's happening within the flock and find a 'leading edge' which is frequently changing position. I hope you can see it.

It might help us to visualise a solution better if you tell us what you need it for. What's the scenario?

It only looks instantaneous because our own visual response is so slow relative to theirs...if you slow the flocks/shoals movement right down you'll see the 'domino effect' pass through them following from the leading birds/fish. I've seen it on Nature programs several times demonstrating it.

I've found this that seems to support the wikipedia article linked by Mr Skeptic. It seems to show that rice contains melatonin which is capabe of binding to the receptor sites but does not indicate the amount one would need to eat to have the sleep inducing effect. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7773197

Expt1: I've just done 30 seconds each with a pair of scissors and a fork (S/Steel). The scissors did not spark and the fork did initially but stopped after 2 or 3 seconds. They were both quite hot to touch. Expt2: I left the fork 'cooking' for five minutes to let it get really hot..on the basis that the electrons needed more energy to start arcing but it didn't happen. I laid it on top of a plastic thermos cup which melted where the fork was in contact...gives you an idea how hot I got it! An aluminium ring-pull and small alumininium mitre block gave 'fireworks' almost immediately. I think, probably, the main basis for the microwave manufacturers blanket recommendations against using metal objects is that there are too many shapes and combinations of metal types to recommend its use in them. They are playing safe. Knowing what I know now about stainless steel, I still would not use it in a microwave because there maybe scenarios, I'm not aware of, that may be dangerous to the`appliance or myself.

Have you put a steel fork in the microwave...does this spark?