Jump to content

J2014

Members
  • Content Count

    23
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About J2014

  • Rank
    Quark

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
    Neuroscience
  1. I think this is good principle. I think the problem comes though when give rights to humans that protect us against things which could produce more benifit than harm. Consider for example experimenting on babies or the mentally disabled. This could result in scientific discoveries that save thousands of lives. Consider slavery, We consider it wrong even if it were to bring benifits to our economy. The point is that human lives are protected by rights that mean we should not be treated as property ie as a slave . Yet when it comes to animal experimentation we treat animals as property. To
  2. I don't think we need to prove animals have feelings for the original argument to be accepted, merely that we have as much evidence to support this as to support the belief that other humans have feelings
  3. Yes, perhaps it was premature to say they induced depression. Perhaps it would be better to say they induced experiences which resulted in a change in the perception of ambiguous stimuli. The same thing was done in another study using chronic stress to affect their preferences. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23847501 I suppose the difference between a plant and an animal like a rat is that rats can learn about the 'what, where and when' of events. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3690604// They combine multiple sensory inputs to form a new representation of the world. So
  4. If we accept the wikipedia definition of sentience as the abilty to experience perceive or feel subjectivity, then I would say there is evidence. For example in this study ... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3055368/ "Rats were trained to press a lever to receive a food reward contingent to one tone and to press another lever in response to a different tone to avoid punishment by electric foot-shock. In the ambiguous-cue test, the lever-press responses to tones with frequencies intermediate to the trained tones were taken as indicators for the rats' expectation of a positive
  5. Hi, l have previously been very pro animal experimentation based on a utilitarian argument. Recently I have however come across the animal rights argument of Gary Francione that as animals are sentient and have interests, these interests deserve to be protected to the same degree as we protect the interests of humans of comparative sentience, ie. babies or the mentally disabled. To conduct animal research therefore seems to disregard the interest of animals to not be treated as property (that is have their interests to continue to live be subservient to our own interests). Do you
  6. In E.coli new phospholipids are synthesised from dihydroxyacetone phosphate, which is it self made from fructose 1,6-bisphosphate. http://www.annualrev...7.030502.090851 Essentially cells grow their membranes through the metabolism of sugers.
  7. I am not a climate scientist, however from my understanding what you describe would be the the ideal experiment. Obviously that cant be done. The climate models are not however simple statistical correlations that lack controls. They are complex computer simulations that take data from experiments that approximate the relative effects of as many variables as possible that would have an effect on the climate, thereby controlling for them. They then run these models to see how well they match past climate conditions, and how CO2 has affected the past climate. They then run them forwards in time
  8. This review does suggest epigentics may play a role in autism, however I have never seen any evidence to suggest the epigenetic changes were induced by "overstimulation of the information age". Schanen NC. 2006 Epigenetics of autism spectrum disorders. Hum Mol Genet. 2006 Oct 15;15 Spec No 2:R138-50 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16987877?dopt=Abstract
  9. What control in that experiment distingueishes between their hypothesis, that placental status can influence IQ, and the alternate hypothesis that genetics influenced them both? There was none. That is becasue natural experiments are limited in controls. The researchers do not randomly induce the experimental manipulation to see what the effects are, rather they find "natural" experimental manipulations. Because the induction of the experimental manipulation in not random, other factors can lead to both the assumed controled experimental manipulation being merely correlated with an effect, rat
  10. I did the above and now you dont want to accept the logical conclusion to save face. as for the pitiful attempt to disparage my argument by saying I do not understand what I am talking about, or the progress of science, I have already explained how I think epidemiology fits into the progress of science, providing important insight in to what genes may be important that can be further explored in animal models. If you actually think that any statement in science is obviously correct, or any experiment can find conclusive evidence then you really have no idea how science works. I think it is y
  11. IQ is not a normal trait? Firstly you should be asking about the competence of the delivery teams because a traumatic birth can also be correlated with schizophrenia. The disposition of the family dog is not relevent because, it would, i assume, not be a shared by twins reared apart. Futhermore there is no mechanism that you can extrapolate from animal models that would give rise to such an effect. There is however for the effects of share experience in the womb (see the previous schizophrenia review paper) I really dont. The fact that the epidemiolgists in the journal sa
  12. I think you dont understand my arguement. You're the one who claimed that twin studies showed "conclusively" the result of genetic inheritance. It sounded a bit like naive verificationism so I gave an possible alternative interpretation of the data that is not falsified by that experiement. If we are to come at this question from an unbiased perspective then all the twin studies you metioned give support to the shared placenta hypothesis. At least to the extent that they also give support to the shared DNA hypothesis. I might as well ask you if you could give me any evidence that the share
  13. Indeed that is exactly what i am saying, it does not conclusively show the result is due to genetic inheritance. It could also be due to sharing the exact same conditions in the womb. Non identical twins could have a lower correlation bacause although they share the same womb, they do not share the same placenta. I am not saying that this shared developement hypothesis is true, but it should not be disregarded either.
  14. The problem with natural experiments tho is that they are very poorly controled, and that is what prevents these corralative studies showing causation. In the twin studies for example, monozygotic twins do not just share the same DNA, they also share the same placenta. Surely any correlation between genetics and behaviour could then be due to shared developement in the womb rather than shared genetics? Similar lack of controls can be found in genome wide association studies, genes may be correlated with unknown environmental factors rather than behaviour itself, eg people with a specific mutat
  15. I don't think this is necessarily true. Lemarckism could still occur without a selection pressure from the environment, each member of a species could acquire more characteristics enabling it to be more specialised at exploiting its niche simply by exploiting its niche.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.