Helix

The problem with nominating Nobel prize winners is that you are recognizing them for the award. The work they did to deserve the Nobel happened in years past. That's one reason there's a latency period for the award - it often takes time to see the impact of discovery.

You're right, but this is the year they were recognized for their work, by the Nobel Committe, so I thought we could do the same.

But I do see your point, the discovery happend in the 1980's (or around that).

Viruses involved in tandem with the cells their infection vectors proved successful for. As long as one virus is constructed in such a way that it can successfully infect one cell and thus make a multitude of copies of itself, the particular strain will continue to evolve.

But that's not advantageous from an evolutionary standpoint. The host, being unicellular, would die immediately and therefore the virus would only make a few copies, not enough to flourish...what a way to live for millions of years (until multicellular life arose).

Through natural selection the very simple life started to slowing accumulate advantages and changes that led it to become more advanced. Eventually unicellular organisms gave way (but still existed) to multicellular ones. Simply put, they evolved through natural selection.

But what about viruses? They are very simple but require multicellular life to live. How could viruses hang around, untouched by evolution, waiting for plants and dinosaurs to eventually show up?

Helix is right about almost everything, but I would like to clarify one thing. Humans are NOT "farther down the road" than anything else. There is no "road" that is a set path for evolution, for which anything farther along that road is "more evolved." The only way something can be "more evolved" is if it is better able to produce a lot of surviving offspring. By that measure, there are many, many organisms more evolved than humans.

Your right, that isn't the best analogy. What I meant was humans are more "advanced" in terms of neural capacity and dominance (not in numbers but in control). Evolution's goal is producing offspring, so by that beetles are far more "evolved" than we are.

An increase in intelligence is not necessarily an evolutionary "improvement." It's only an improvement if it results in more or better offspring. Human intelligence might seem like a great thing, but it also has a huge cost.

Well, in a way you are right. Evolution's ultimite goal is survival of the species and due to our intelligence we are very likely to keep surviving. But, as you said, that's not all good. Sure, maybe predators aren't a problem now but thermonuclear wars are. We need to worry about self-annihilation, something that evolution doesn't take into account.

I do disagree with you on one thing, and that's the point that we are evolving to be less intelligent. If that were true we would go extinct. Intelligence is all we have; we aren't as strong as lions, or durable as cockroaches or even as prolific as mosquitoes. Our collective intelligence and our ability to tame our surroundings is what has preserved us. Evolution wouldn't "want" that to reverse (want in "'s because it isn't actually a sentient being )

I hope you haven't turned this in yet. It may be wise to look it over and check the validity of just about everything; I know Wikipedia to be better than that.

I'm going to agree with this; some of your claims seem a bit dubious. And from a writing perspective, maybe you could make the arguement a bit stronger/more persuasive and help the sentences flow better.

Btw: props, as the youngsters say, to you for being pro- gay marriage.

If we look at the evolution of animals on earth' date=' the path was slow until humans came along. After that, only humanity has evolved at an accelerated rate. For example, just in the past 50 years life expectancy has increased considerably.

[/quote']

 

The increase in life expectancy was due to medicine, not evolution. Our genes didn't go into overdrive and make us so much better adapted to living; our understanding of medicine led us to make breakthroughs in how to live longer. Evolution is more or less contant, the buildup of genetic mutations cause us to change and therefore that isn't going to fluctuate in speed spontaneously.

 

What makes humans different from animals are our minds. Animals reach a certain level of adaptation and don't progress their minds, unless there is a pertubation within the environment. New behavior and adaptation will eventually parallel with a genetic improvement. Humans, never stop adapting because we are always changing the environment, for example via culture.

 

You make it seem like there are animals and then there are humans. In terms of evolution we are the same, just humans are father "down the road" of evolution. Animals continue to develop just as humans do, and why shouldn't they? There is an inherent urge to survive in all animals, including humans, that compels animals to be continually responsive to their environment. You are right in saying humans are always changing, but so are animals.

 

If one assumes that genetics is the basis for evolution, the quickening of human evolution, relative to the slow boat path of animals differs only by the rate of human adaptation. This strongly suggests the brain and the nervous system having an impact on genetics.

 

Genetics is the basis for evolution. But, again, the only evolutionary difference between animals and humans is that we've been at this longer; it's not that we evolved faster. When were were at the stage of animals today, sometime in the age of mammals, we were on just the same clip.

 

I think you mean to say that the human's mind, over the past few hundred years, has taken in new information and done more impressive things than animals. After all, you don't see too many beavers surfing the web and debating particle theory, do you? But this isn't because we evolve faster, it's because we reached an intellectual plateau, and the animals haven't. We are able to advance at a breakneck pace, not due to evolution in overdrive but because our minds are in overdrive.

So it is basically stem cell paper. . put it in and let it grow?

 

*Chu chu chu chia!*

No, this is more "bio-paper." The ink is put on the paper and contains the cells and nutrients. The paper serves as scaffolding. It sounds simple but is very advanced; it is still mostly theoretical though these scientists have managed to make a prototype model.

He isn't using stem cells, as far as I know, so each layer would have to have each cell type in its place I 'pose.

Stem cells would be easier though.

I'm sorry, but I'm only 15 so I can't. I do plan on giving as soon as I can; donating saves lives. I hope everything goes well for your friend, I really do.

I was refering to bone as a structural device. Sorry I should have clarified that. There is already very good progress in that respect.

Ohh do you mean bone rather than bio-paper, let the cells grow in a bone base?

Or am I an idiot (Don't answer that... )?

Oh, right. I was envisioning some complex answer dealing with proteins and the ilk. Simpler answer is best, though (Ockam's Razor).

It's a hit, yet will they feel it? I can see them laughing at this saying, "Oh, I'm not that[/i'] pro-creationist.

They won't feel it, you're right. But they won't laugh about their views, they'll laugh about yours.

No, they'll laugh saying, "This poor sinner is going straight to hell".

Definitely agreed, but I'm unsure if anyone (or at least anyone who's opinion is listened to in the scientific community dealing with this) actually holds a pure nature or pure nurture position anymore, which might make objecting to such positions a bit of a moot point.

That's true, mostly because neither can be disproved so they both stay. Also, it just makes sense: genes play a part but are shaped by your life.

I think the real debate now, over this same NvN issue is what is the connection between the two, as it has been basically proved they both have a role. I personally think it is "Nurture through nature"; that your genes provide the rough framework from which your environment shapes. I think a good analogy for my belief is making a clay model. There is a wire framework (genes) and then there is the molded, shaped clay on top (environment).

But back to the IQ question, I find it highly unlikely that intelligence is one of the aspects controlled mostly by genetic makeup. You can't tell me all the children in Calcutta and Pakistan have "bad" versions of this gene and that's the reason why the education there is absiminal. But I'm sure some will want to counter me saying there probably are geniuses there who are just being neglected, but that's missing my point (although true).

But on the other hand this gene might have a role in your nerves (the number of them) and how well they fire. But I doubt this outshines environment in terms of impact.

I think that's a pithy hit to creationists, but they don't deny things have changed, just not by evolution. Go figure, but still.

haha well I guess they're happy someone gives a damn.

And as an aside, is it known why it's gender selective; percentage wise women get them more than men?

George Bush for proving conclusively that neural degeneration is indeed infectious and to the Christian Right who furthered that hypothesis.

Just kidding (sort of).

I nominate Barry Marshall for his work with Helicobacter pylori and his courage in proving that H. pylori is the culprit behind ulcers by ingesting a sample and becoming sick. He's in the vein of Hillary Kaprowski, which is never a bad thing and disspelled old myths about how ulcers form and therefore how to treat them more effectively.

My brother had that done, I think the doc used silver nitrate. It stopped the nose bleeds but his sense of smell isn't as good as it was before

Then that's a tradeoff, nose bleeding or good sense of smell. Maybe the bleeding will go away; I doubt you'll be bleeding for the rest of your life. Worst case scenario: ebola. If that's true then don't worry, it'll be over soon (just kidding, I'm sure your fine; probably the dry weather.)

Wow, that will be helpful to bacteriology because ecoli can spread fairly easily in our modernized world (contaminated meat can spread all over) so it's good to know how it works.

And plus it's more interesting than my project.

I guess it would depend on what you called intelligence. As far as I know, with things as simple as cells, it's more of a cause-effect kind of thing. If something happens or changes, the cell responds in a certain way. It's like a simple robot I guess. Would you call that intelligent?

I agree with xeluc, it's less "intelligence" and more "if-or". If it's good temperature do X, if not do Y (Y being neutral, i.e. not doing the reaction. It's like a computer in that a computer doesn't choose out of conscienceness to tell you your firewall is off (stupid analogy I know...), it tells you because of the "if-or" complex: if on, say nothing; if not, say X.

So, it's not so much intelligence per se (my least favorite phrase but stil), it's more along the lines of logic. The cell doesn't choose to undergo apopotosis, it happens because chemicals are released due to external (or internal) stimuli.

I study a secretion pathway of uropathogenic Escherichia coli, the kinds that cause urinary tract infections.

That's really great. If you don't mind me asking: what are you working on now involving the pathway?

Ecoli, I think herpguy meant using mass amounts to create a level plants couldn't. But I agree with you, the process is very complicated and wouldn't be cost-efficient.

Maybe you've been blowing it too much and it's irritated the lining or you have a cut that keeps reopening from the blowing.

There are some good ones on HHMI's biointeractive.org. I know you said not the transgenic fly, which is on there, but I'm pretty sure there are other ones geared towards genetics.

Maybe because he thinks it will make him seem to be committed to what he thinks is best for America come Hell or high water?

Maybe, but a lot of Americans are starting to ask "committed to what?". I'm American and I can safely say I have no godly clue why we invaded Iraq. Bush has shown himself to be incapable and unfit, the only thing he is committed to is oil and legacy, both of which he is losing.

What charge(s) would the articles of impeachment include?

I personally think Bush meant a "over my dead body" sort of thing; not inviting impeachment.

But if he were to be impeached, here we go:

1. Aiding and abetting violation of the Geneva Convention

2. Violating international laws (including U.S. ones) about prisons and the treatment of prisoners (note: I don't mean Abu Grahib, I'm refering to the secret prisons in East Europe).

3. Violation (along with the NSA) of domestic spying laws.

4. Allowing corporate entities to benefit from war directly; warprofiteering.

5. Knowledge of federal crimes regarding intelligence agents and their released identities.

6. Breaching the Establishment Clause of the Constitution ( a few counts here.)

There must be more, but these are a few. Compassionate Conservatism my arse.