divagreen

I found it amazing...

Mono Lake, California

Image: Image © 2010 Henry Bortman

The finding, published today (December 2) on the Science Express Web site, throws into doubt the long-held belief that phosphorus is absolutely essential to life, and broadens the range of environments in which scientists might expect to find extraterrestrial organisms.

 

"This is a surprise," said biochemist Barry Rosen of Florida International University, who was not involved in the research. "Not just for bacteria but for life in general, arsenic is one of the few elements that is considered to be only toxic and has no role in metabolism."

 

It's "pretty damn surprising," agreed ecologist James Elser of the Arizona State University, who also did not participate in the study. "I've spent my career studying phosphorus limitation, and how organisms use phosphorus, and how nucleic acids always have phosphorus in them, and now there's this exception. That's what's really weird."

 

Arsenic falls directly below phosphorus on the period table, and thus has many similar chemical properties. In contrast to relatively stable phosphorus-based molecules, however, arsenic compounds are extremely unstable. While phosphorus compounds take years, decades, or even millennia to break down, the rate of hydrolysis of arsenic compounds is usually measured in seconds or minutes.

 

In fact, its similarity to phosphorus and its instability partly explains why arsenic is so toxic. The body may not be able to distinguish between phosphate -- the most common form of phosphorus in organisms -- and its arsenic equivalent, arsenate. As a result, scientists suspect that arsenate can be incorporated into molecules and pathways that normally use phosphate, causing downstream processes to fail if the arsenate molecules are quick to break down or otherwise don't work properly.

 

But at least one organism seems to have tackled this problem. Sampling the sediment of Mono Lake in California, a salt lake with high dissolved arsenic concentrations, NASA astrobiologist Felisa Wolfe-Simon of the US Geological Survey and her colleagues identified a bacterium that can grow when cultured with arsenic, but only trace amounts of phosphorus. Under conditions of high arsenic, the bacteria didn't grow as well as when phosphorus was abundantly available, but they grew significantly more than when neither arsenic nor phosphorus was provided.

 

"That says, to me, that they really are using the arsenic," Rosen said.

 

 

Read more: Arsenic supports life? - The Scientist - Magazine of the Life Sciences http://www.the-scientist.com/news/displ ... z170W6QMUC

The component that makes up DNA has been changed? I find that startling, especially since the science behind it presents it on a molecular and metabolic level.

This thread reminds me of the word "foliage".

When I was in the fourth grade, in Florida, we read the book, "Where The Red Fern Grows". That was my first encounter of the word. To my young fourth grade mind it read, "fol-EYE-ij". I was corrected in class, because I was reading out loud and the correct pronunciation was "FOIL-ij".

To this day I still pronounce it "FOIL-ij" instead of "fol-EE-ij".

I speculate that whoever taught my teacher had dyslexia. This person had such authority that everyone around me pronounced it the same way until I moved to NC and met one of my best friends, who had a Master's in English Lit and at the age of 29, told me otherwise. I will pronounce it correctly around people that I am trying to impress, but around the house I still say "FOIL-ij" which greatly grates on my Canadian husband's nerves.

This little anecdote reminds me of the "Lisp King Ferdinand" and how the Castilian dialect was formed. Only different.

I have listened to both conservative and liberal talk radio. There is a difference. The conservative talk shows tend to slant a little more toward fresh logic and argument, while the liberal tends to slant a little more toward emotional appeal.

This has gotta be a POE. Please, tell me this is a POE.

But in case it is not...will you please provide the evidence that this is the case? In other words, please cite your sources as to how you have come to this erroneous conclusion.

I still bet it counts as a common assumption among Americans that the Republicans are more inclined to favor the rich while the Democrats are more inclined to favor increased federal and state spending to achieve social justice. Isn't this why Labor Unions are always Democratic and why Westchester County and Orange County vote Republican? The only way this class interest voting is broken up is by the Republicans supplementing their appeal by posing as the party of religion to attract the cornpone crowd south of the Mason-Dixon line and as the party of international aggression to please frustrated, testosterone-driven old males shouting at television news pictures of Iran or other countries defying U.S. interests. The Republicans also used to make a covert appeal to racism until that became too unfashionable.

 

The real problem in the economy is not excessive spending, as so many assume, but simply insufficient taxes to pay for the starkly minimalist expenditures of the U.S. federal government. Just look at the facts: France collects 46% of its GNP in taxes; Germany collects 41% of its GNP in taxes; England collects 39% of its GNP in taxes; while the U.S. takes in only 28% of its GNP in taxes at all levels of government. Of course there's going to be a huge deficit, but not because entitlement programs are generous, which they are not by international standards, but just because taxes are low.

 

It's quite instructive to see how the Tea Party was screaming hysterically about government expenditures, the deficit, and taxes, but doesn't seem to notice the $800 billion just piled onto the U.S. government's obligations by the massive Bush tax cut for the wealthy being extended.

I could be wrong, but I am going to take a stab that you live in Texas.

The Tea Party Movement was highly successful in the spreading of disinformation to the general public, that went against the general public's own personal interest.

I don't want to offend people...but I found this very, very funny.

2. I think statistics show most criminals reoffend after being "rehabilitated".

I assume you will be able to cite your source.

Why do I feel that I just got patted on the head and told to go bake something?

I can understand why that's frustrating, and I often feel that way myself when I hear what seem like stupid arguments.

Please stop projecting, I'm not frustrated in the least...as for stupid seeming arguments, I'll leave that to you, nowhere have I raised the issue of "stupid", my focus has been on "baseless" arguments and disinformation being the root cause of a large misinformed demographic of the electorate.

So I don't blame you for reacting that way.

Actually, my response wasn't a mere reaction, it was an analogy and an accurate one.

But I think you're unfairly dismissing a broad (and valid) concern based on what you perceive as invalid merits of a specific case. And this is what often happens in these "conservatives are stupid" arguments -- one set of liberals will create (or at least be perceived as creating) a problem, then another set of liberals will try to explain why conservatives shouldn't get their panties in a wad, and THAT will be the focus, rather than simply straightening out the misinformation. People don't enjoy being told that they're idiots, and they certainly don't respond by repenting and joining their attacker's ideology.

Sorry no, I am pointing out specific (there are so many more, but let's address these first shall we?) and well substantiated instances of those with a specific political agenda disseminating disinformation...basically lies, in order to engender fear-mongering. Your "conservatives are stupid" claim is a straw man, I have not made that argument.

What is being discussed is the actual lies and prevarications by individual...not their intelligence, personality or any other ad hominem, stop playing the victim by proxy.

If you can debunk or refute those who are exposing this propagation of lies, please do so, but again, remember that digging deeper for some means due diligence, so by trying to refute claims of fear-mongering by giving further examples of it, you will likely be called on committing the fallacy of ignoratio elenchi.

Regardless of why Oklahomans passed an anti-sharia law resolution, the fact that a judge put a stay on it gives them pause.

No, the "why" is the crux of the thread, disinformation, the fact that the bill was stayed due to being the legal equivalent of banning the ten commandments should do more than give pause...it's so blatantly obvious a violation of the first amendment. As for having any merit at all when the motivation for the bill is ignored, it's as much of a waste of time as a ban on cholesterol in boxes of crackers that never had any to begin with. :lol:

It is logical for them to wonder what that judge is thinking.

Having to wonder what the judge is thinking is only necessary if one completely ignores the first amendment.

This will happen no matter what Fox News has to say about it.

Yet, if you refuse the "brand" of religion, you will be ably to find many and myriad cries from the right-wing disinformation machine concerning the "removal of (Christian™) God from America.

Do you not see the blatant hypocrisy...and if you really need cited examples of this?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=removing+god+from+America

Do note the lack of any cites from Islamic sources.

(I was asked for examples on the more general subject, by the way, so calling it a straw man unfair.)

Not at all, you conflated your example with the explicit declarative that it hadn't been addressed by Maddow...but had you done due diligence you would have seen that it has. Still, if you wish to remove the issue of a straw man argument, you are still left with several other non sequitur descriptions that can be applied in regards to your "general subject" example of the Sharia law "threat", - ignoratio elenchi, you've tried to refute the claim of fear mongering with an example of fear-mongering.

There's an irony: Telling me that it's not a major concern,

Okay, I'll bite, can you cite a single example of Sharia law superseding the constitutional law of ANY western nation, state or city. I won't hold my breath.

and oh, by the way, you think their exercise of sharia practices should be permitted.

Please, you have to find something other than straw man arguments, it's getting tiresome. Catholics have the right to live their lives by canon laws, rituals and practices (if this doesn't contravene the laws of the country/state), Jews are allowed to live their lives by halacha laws, rituals and practices (if this doesn't contravene the laws of the country/state). The first amendment of the constitution makes it clear that the state can't interfere with people's religious and vice versa, provided those practices don't violate the law.

Where is the hew and cry protesting Halacha law, or Canon law?

There isn't, nobody is kicking the fear-monger machine for these.

Don't just dig deeper, think deeper.

If they're going to ban one, they are going to have to ban them all.

What's happened locally here concerning the flying of a Christian flag at a VFW cemetery, as it was a public/government place it was taken down after the threat of a first amendment lawsuit by the ACLU, Many Christians protested so the city council decided to compromise in allowing the rotation of all religious flags recognized by the US armed forces (including flags of Islam, Wicca and the Church of Satin). This made them even more upset.

The agenda here should be obvious in regards to inclusion/exclusion and the first amendment.

http://www2.journalnow.com/news/2010/nov/10/limit-flags-group-says-ar-525190/#comments

I understand that you're not advocating men beating their wives, but there are many aspects to sharia law and the purpose of my bringing up this subject was to point out that Rachel Maddow and her ilk are attempting to downplay their concerns while disrespecting and ridiculing them at the exact same time.

You say "downplay", I say "due diligence". As for ridicule, see reductio ad absurdum.

Setting aside for a moment the sheer gall of quoting Noam Chomsky as an unbiased source for political analysis, this issue has gotten quite a bit of attention, and while there are many valid opinions on the subject one of them is not "myth".

Wrong, Chomsky's purview in this example isn't political analysis, it's his internationally recognized scholarly expertise in the science of linguistics (he's the most cited expert in the world in this regard) and cognitive science, you neglected to play the ad hominem card against Edward S. Herman though, why?

Is it because he isn't on some right-wing knee-jerk list?

As for the liberal media myth, how can you possibly argue that a corporate, for-profit media sector can be trusted to report fairly on other corporations, such as companies who advertise in that same media?

This is all great fodder for another thread because there does exist a wealth of scholarly and academic resources (no...not just cites from the news sources themselves), that can be brought to the table that exists outside the realm of the monosyllabic chants of the more ill informed partisan pundits.

There is no easy, casual dismissal here, especially from the far left. What's most likely is a cancelation of equal biases depending on the source. Which supports my point.

This is about deliberate dissemination of disinformation, lies and a consensus of deliberate prevarication...you have yet to give any examples of this from so-called "liberal news" outlets. PBS and NPR...they are not corporate sources of news, or even Free Speech Radio or Democracy Now. They may be seen in the light of having a bias, BUT...can you give any examples of propaganda, disinformation and fear-mongering that even compare fractionally; to the bovine excreta spewing forth from corporate owned right wing purveyors of fear?

You want to make this about personalities, when the issue is decidedly information vs disinformation.

Period.

I don't trust Media Matters for America any more than I trust the Media Research Center, but I think your point is correct.

As this forum is a science forum, it should be pretty clear to all (well, most at least), that faith...or trust is no replacement for due diligence.

If you folks wonder why conservative Americans are concerned by the various "sharia law" discussions taking place around the country, you really have to look a little deeper than Rachel Maddow.

Let's not confuse "digging deeper" with employing a straw man though.

But let's address this straw man argument anywho:

Oklahoma passed a ban on the use of Sharia Law on election day. Redundant, you might say? An unnecessary reaction to partisanship? How could sharia law possibly be used in American jurisprudence? Conservatives are just over-reacting to the ground-zero mosque controversy?

I'm reminded of cholesterol, when the dangers of cholesterol reared its ugly head decades ago, it became almost a catch-phrase on most packaged foods in supermarkets, "100% cholesterol free!!!"

The thing is...those foods never had any cholesterol in them in the first place.

They should pass a law against Canon law and Halakha law while they're at it!

(Don't worry, there's no need ...just like with Sharia)

Please think about this...a little deeper, it should be clear why.

And yet yesterday a judge put a stay order on the execution of that new law, saying that it might violate the constitutional rights of Muslims. No, really.

(hint: it is a violation of the first amendment)

In other words, her court is actually going to consider the possibility that a man can physically abuse his wife as punishment for non-obedience because that's what his faith tells him to do. This judge is actually going to look at that argument, and so seriously does she (yeah it's a woman judge!) consider the merits of the argument that she actually put a stay order on the implementation of the law.

Wow! that's some pretty deep digging...pretty high piling too, "in other words".

Let's dig a little deeper, and see what this is really about. It is actually an utter waste of time and resources brought about by fear-mongering, bigotry and disinformation. The basis of this entire fiasco was about a ruling in New Jersey that was purportedly made by a judge based on Sharia. No such ruling ever took place, as it is far easier to prove that it did, then it didn't, I'll leave it up to you to cite case-law (not, like ...worldnetdaily, y'know?) proving that this New Jersey Sharia example actually happened.

My point rather is that this sort of consideration -- the fact that it's actually taking place in spite of what Rachel Maddow wants you to think -- is what concerns conservatives.

Based on, what again? Aside from fear-mongering of course.

You don't think liberals have political brain candy just like conservatives do? You don't think liberals feed at the Hollywood, Air America, MSNBC trough and then run around screaming at each other about rendition and religion and Bush Lied Kids Died and the evils of a military and so on and so on and so on? Come on.

Ahhh, the tu quoque fallacy, okay, have at it. Let's see a list of unsubstantiated disinformation being trotted out by the (so-called) liberal press?

If the volume is lower I would suggest that it is ONLY because there are half as many self-proclaimed liberals as there are self-proclaimed conservatives. But I don't think it's lower.

I would suggest that your suggestion, is merely a suggestion borne of confirmation bias.

Maddow addressed a specific disinformation though, no need to attempt refutation via non-sequitur (plus, 'round these parts, you'll likely get called on it.)

Perhaps there's something to that, in the sense that the conservative media is perceived as being louder at the moment. I think it ignores decades of liberal control over Hollywood and mainstream news, but I don't disagree that the right has ratcheted it up a notch.

Ahhh, the liberal media myth...

suggested viewing

That's the problem with partisanship -- it produces more partisanship. So instead of condemning conservatives for feeding at this trough, we should be condemning anybody who feeds at this trough -- including people watching and responding to Rachel Maddow.

Nice ad hominem

Buuuuut....

If you actually dig a little deeper, you will see that Maddow in no way misrepresented Angle.

Have a listen:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/SharronAngle0929.mp3

At around the 43 minute mark, the following exchange:

QUESTIONER: I keep hearing about Muslims wanting to take over the United States. And I want to know your thoughts about that. They are building mosques all over the place. They want to build one near [ground zero]. And they seem to be getting their way. On a TV program just last night I saw that they are taking over a city in Michigan. And the residents, they want them out. They want them out. I wanted your thoughts.

ANGLE: We're talking about a militant terrorist situation, which I believe isn't a widespread thing. But it is enough that we need to address, and we have been addressing it. My thoughts are these. First of all, Dearborn, Michigan, and Frankford, Texas are on American soil, and under Constitutional law. Not Sharia law. And I don't know how that happened in the United States.

It seems to me there is something fundamentally wrong with allowing a foreign system of law to even take hold in any municipality or government situation in our United States.

Some more cited and sourced confirmation (of the disinformation and the hoax(es) it was based on).

http://foolocracy.com/2010/10/sharron-angle-sharia-law-in-dearborn-michigan-and-some-town-in-texas-that-doesnt-exist/

Obstructive jaundice is a condition caused by gallstones filling the bile ducts, if I am not mistaken. This causes a build-up of bilirubin in the blood, which causes the yellow pigmentation of the skin, which is a sign. When the term "jaundice" is used, it typically refers to the sign, rather than the condition.

I do not see the killing of violent, murderous people to be a violent act at all. So the irony no longer applies. I find that amusing.

At least I can recognize irony when I am guilty of it... :lol:

I don't believe anyone so violent should be allowed to live.

The irony of this statement struck me as particularly funny... :lol:

While many countries do not believe in the death penalty, I do for certain occasions...

War criminals.

And confirmed serial killers.

Like this one.

A violent response to violence? Yes.

But I believe it should be used very sparingly...

IMO.

D'oh!

I did it!

Thank you!

Will only use this knowledge sparingly if not at all. But knowledge is a good thing.

Didn't work...I don't see Cartman.

How do you do a bubble?

Is there a Bubble 101 class that I can attend?

I know that it is a long watch, but well worth it.

I thought that this video brought up an interesting point...where is the accountability of the spreading of misinformation for the rightwing media? Where does the debunking of misinformation happen when the information center is self-contained?

I would like to hear you all's thoughts on this, since many of us are in a field where peer review is required.

The staff is not obligated to notify you of any action taken in regard to a report that you generate. The report button, afaik, simply generates a notification. Upon being notified, the staff will investigate(and deliberate) and, if needed, take action that they deem is necessary. You thinking a post violated our rules does not necessitate the staff thinking the same.

And I agree with the spirit of the part that is bolded...but surely with as many staff as involved (mods and admins), a PM would be helpful to explain to the reporter as to why that is not a rule violation? Everyone wins...the reporter has a clearer understanding of the rules and the mod has done their duty as far as explaining the interpretation of the rules and their enforcement on the site.

Having said that...

I think that this site's moderating is pretty stellar compared to the moderating on other sites of special interest groups.

Comparing this site to Rat Skept, is like comparing apples to balloons...there are some good threads (Rat Skept)...but there are also posts that violate the ethos of the site, as far as I am concern. Not to mention the rules. Rational skepticism does not equate with irrational derision. And that is what I have found there.

What I have encountered with rule violation is that people either think that they are above the rules or they don't understand the interpretation and enforcement of them. A moderator should find the time to help them out, IMO.

Speaking of which...I know we have at least one RatSkept mod on here...

Hello! Mod over at Rational Skepticism, just signed up here. Sorry I am late!

 

Seems like you have a great forum here! Keep up the good work!

 

(Oh, I'll be lurking here, mostly, as RatSkep takes up quite a bit of my time.)

 

Stijn

If anybody knows him/her, I would be curious as to how they might weigh in on the discussion.

Let's see...I am confused about the rules...but I really want to play...

And I am not sure about the template? Op I hope that you will provide a scenario? I am used to game theory questions operating within the context of scenarios. After all, we have not been pondering this as long you have, as to how to take over the world.

My stance is to do a tit for tat and sometimes just a tit...how is cooperative effort best inspired?

And can we have teams on this? Can I work with another poster or several? I have always found that collaborative thinking seems to lead to the best epistemological studies (you need that other pair of eyes to verify that you know what you know...or not, as the case may be),and can create viable strategies.

More info, please? :D

I visited the Rational Skeptics site several months ago, as it was a "sister site" to this one. I even posted there, I think once. But it was not my cuppa tea. When I want rational skepticism, I come here. When I want deluded, insubstantial bashing I go to other sites. (In defense of Ratskep...they did have a couple of interesting threads, though. Just not enough.)

But Severian...I have to ask you...why did you not PM a mod earlier on? Or did you? I think that there should be user accountability that is cooperative with mod responsibility.

Posting a complaint in a thread is not the best way to be heard when you are getting misrepresented and gangbanged. And you were. I think that such strawmanning tactics takes enormous creativity...I must admit I haven't quite seen the like. And if you look at the posters' history of who were performing the act, it certainly isn't new. Yuck.

I am mostly a lurker here. I do purview the science sub-forums...I read them to expand my knowledge...is that okay if I do not always participate?

One of the things that I like about this site is its commitment to quality. Quality over quantity.

B)

Did you have any intention of addressing my post at all, or do you just want to blame the Democrats for the financial crisis? If so, you should blame the right one: Clinton

Yes!

But I still prefer the democrats over the Tea Partiers...*cough*, Republicans.

Maybe we can get the war between the states heated back up!

 

The rude, aggressive, Yankee Patriots

 

vs

 

The mannerly, gentile, Southern Loyalists

 

 

ARE YOU READY TO RUMBLE?

I doubt that there will be a war between the north and the south started here, because I don't think that Bear's Key is from the States; he knows too much about American history.

Mea culpa, Bear's Key. Cheers.

 

As for the Koch brothers, they're from the south, no? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_Family_Foundations#Political_activities

The Koch brothers were born and raised in Kansas, which is in the midwest, luv.

David Koch currently lives in New York and Charles still lives in Kansas.

Please do not insult my delicate southern sensibilities by insinuating that the Tea Party Movement in any shape or form started in the south. You will give me the vapours.

If I am not mistaken, the first Tea Party rally started in New York by Trevor Leach.

:D

This is a great post dude....

No, it is not...

It is misinformation.

Cite your sources, Bear Keys, as to where the Tea Party started and where they received their funding.

And if you can...try not to conflate it with the politics of the civil war...

That would be lovely.

Then we can share a cuppa tea.

I think including a "moderate" option in this poll is a bit disingenuous. In my experience people who self-identify as "moderates" in the US are generally conservatives who would rather not self-identify as conservatives.

I agree with this...I am steadfastly against corporatism overtaking the government. :D

I have to say that when I first saw the thread about homosexuality in the animal kingdom my thought was "where else? "

 

I can't see any definition of animals that makes sense but excludes us.

I agree. So why do people use the argument, and I have heard it often, "We are not animals!" as a springboard for billboarding their own sense of morality?

Especially as it relates to homosexuality, bisexuality, any type of sexuality? (Including polyamory)

I am guilty of using this same argument in discussions centering around violence. "We are fully capable of rational thought!" is my counter to the pessimists who claim that, "The world is going to toilet!" because we do exhibit some of the negative characteristics of the animal kingdom, such as fratricide, matricide, patricide, hate crimes, murder for money or even the simple random murder of another human being.

For the record, I think that we are, too (animals).

There is a distinction between insects and animals, no?

So why is it often a convenient response to certain social engineering questions that include, "just look at the rationale that can be backed up by insects...which can support a a socio-dynamic theory...e.g. ants", yet fail to include the often noted "raison'd etre"?

I question the interdependence of animal communities and the insect communities.

I think that the two are very different.