Ringer

Yes and no. The chemicals neurons send can have regulatory functions, or be intermediates for other regulatory mechanisms, in other cell types. But I don't believe there are any neurons whose sole function is to regulate intercellular functions of other cell types.

If you an voluntary control what you focus on you can defocus as well. It's just a matter finding the correct muscle contraction. I would be shocked if anyone who has fairly normal eye muscles couldn't do this.

Well, if something seems like it's a homework question I usually give hints at an answer and ask if it's homework. If it's not homework I'll answer to the best of my ability and time.

You do realize that the whole thing about about being sued due to trace stray seeds is a myth right? And even if they did there is precedent that they would owe no money. If you are going to tell others to stop spreading propaganda one would think you should do the same. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted See #2

Brains do not use electrical impulses, that implies the movement of electrons. Neurons use electrochemical gradients. Sorry, but it's a little terminology pet peeve.

IIRC subliminal messages don't work and many 'repressed' memories tend to be false memories, I would have to say that it's very unlikely.

The argument of 'how many people MAY die from GMO' is sorely lacking. Not only because it is speculative, but it ignores the problem of how many people ARE dying due to lack of certain nutrients their normal diet does not adequately contain, but can be resolved through modification. Or how many people are dying from increased yields they could be produced. It's the same risk one takes when undergoing, say, a heart transplant. In one case you may die, in the other you will die.

We should also keep in mind that the reproductive aspects of Drosophila are far removed from ours. There are mammals that can die from abstinence, but our reproductive system differs enough that I doubt that results of abstinence in Drosophila would give much insight into human abstinence.

I wonder if you would see the same effect in a species that is able to masturbate.

It's not that it's vague, it's just artificial and arbitrary. Some areas would define death as the end of metabolic activity, but under some circumstances that doesn't work so another definition is used. Biology isn't always clear cut because evolution doesn't care about how easily we define things. It depends on who you ask, what type of virus it is, etc. One of the reasons you're having so much negative blow back from your questions is because you seem to be expecting a simplistic answer to a very complex question. It all depends on the usefulness of whatever working definition of 'alive' you are using at the time. Sometimes they can be thought of as alive, sometimes they can be thought of as non-living entities. Alive or not alive isn't a strict category.

So instead of a simple assumption (that there is matter that does not interact electromagnetically) you are making assumptions of space working in a way that is far from norm, and uses an unknown mechanism? We already know there are types of particles that can interact selectively with forces (photons interact electromagnetically but not gravitationally IIRC), so the assumption that there is a type of matter that won't interact electromagnetically isn't reaching very far.

But the reason it's invisible is the exact same reason its lensing effects can be seen when galaxies collide. It doesn't interact electromagnetically, it not being visible is just a extension of that attribute. Just because it can't be seen doesn't mean it can't be detected.

Well, don't give us in US too much credit. Not only do most not know of Persian, Portuguese, Spanish, Urdu, etc., some call what is spoken here American. As in, 'I speak American'. It's not that most are self contained, its just many are very dumb.

I inherited the title of atheist? Do you know inheritance works? Do you know that women can be atheists? The fact that a man who believes the word atheism is a proper noun is less suited to define atheism than a child. My discussions of theism in my life is solely due to the actions of people bringing it up and actively asking me or somehow making negative remarks about non-theistic beliefs. So yes, they are forced upon me, unless I want to lie. Activism requires activity. My non-understanding of you is because you don't actually bring anything to the table other than bald, unsupported assertions. I don't give a damn what you believe, I won't ever know what anyone believes unless they bring it up. As I said, I don't think about religion until it is brought up, it's not part of my life unless put there. Science doesn't touch on supernaturalism and has no part of this discussion. As usual you are incorrect. Belief in the supernatural has never had an effect on my life other than negative (when I did belief in a god), it made more sense to me to just not think or care about the supernatural. Again, what are you talking about character traits?

Notice I never said that it was due to eating rice. Nor was it indicated in any other post.

Atoms are constantly replaced in everything.

Not arguing against this, just thought I'd throw in the fact that Japan has had a problem, not only with fertility, but young people refuse to even be in relationships.

That's because there isn't one. Saying it's a fact doesn't make it one. WTF is the role of an atheist? To work on holidays? Having a belief =/= being a religion. I don't believe in ghosts, but there is no religion for non-ghost belief. What are you even saying. We don't discuss our disbelief in a god. We may express it, we may show why certain beliefs are improbable, but what you won't hear is (most of us) pontificate about our non-belief. Just as I don't debate the reliability of lie detectors unless someone brings the subject up. Because it's not part of my life and I don't think or care about it. Name calling is very adult of you. You should probably actually make an argument, or at least explain your assertions.

Appeal to the danger of it! "You want adrenaline? Swim with crocs. Will they eat you or the kumquats?" You could even have a side business gambling on which they choose to eat.

Yes

Actually there are a extinct and extant vertebrates without vertebral bones. Cephalaspidomorphia (lamprey) and chondrichthyes (cartilagonous fish) being very obvious examples. The vertebral column, not the bone, is the characteristic you would want. The notochord couldn't be an argument because now you include chordates outside of vertebrata. But the analogy incidentally makes a point. The definition of vertebrates, like the definition of atheists, has certain connotations that differ from the actual denotation. Online dictionaries tend to use more connotative usages than the strict definitions . So while you may be making an argument for the definition of atheist you use, it doesn't mean it is an argument for a strict definition of atheist.

If you're asking if the limit of our brains has too many variables to make an accurate prediction of its upper limit, then the answer is probably yes for some things and no for others. Upper limit to what? how many colors we can see? how many memories we can form? how many facts we can know? how many axonal connections can be formed? etc, etc, etc.

Limits depend on a wide variety of factors. An extreme example would be the bicep branchii limit in a quadriplegic is probably pretty low. . .

Don't worry about the neuron unnecessarily. Muscle cells can contract without neuronal stimulation (such as cardiac muscles) so neurotransmitters aren't necessary. Think of what fibers cause the actual contraction and the molecules involved. Skeletal muscles release a specific ion that may be artificially introduced, or its release artificially induced without an action potential.

Is this homework? I'm going to answer as if it is. Think about what happens when the threshold for contraction is reached. What ions are released and what do they react with. How could you replicate those steps without an action potential?