jimmydasaint

If I read the post correctly, he was re-iterating my point but in far more elegant, and emphatic, language than I could have used.

Without giving away the answer, imagine the enzymes as 100 permanently hungry mice. You feed them the substrate - peanuts. You time how long it takes the mice to eat the peanuts. As you increase the number of peanuts again and again many times, and you draw a graph of the rate at which peanuts are eaten, what do you think will happen? Remember the mice are permanently hungry... OR, read this Biology Revision Guide which should give you more accurate information rather than my poor analogy.

Wonderful find I would hypothesise that tea and coffee drinking revolutionised the lives of people working in unsterile environments because heating water sterlises it from certain pathogens. I have no evidence of this at all but it is my own pet hypothesis/opinion.

I did not suggest any proof at all. There is no clear, absolute proof for many phenomena that we see. I am asking the question do we have a soul? Now, if you believe in the evidence for evolution of organisms through a selectionist/genetic drift explanation which is a part of the Modern Synthesis, then you should arrive at a conclusion where you can see consciousness and the manifestations of a brain that seems to be working on a feedback and feed-forward mechnism. As a believer, which I am, the whole of one's life is about nurturing the soul and improving it for its journey into the afterlife. The domain of religion is the soul. However, in this esteemed forum, the emphasis is on the hypothetico-deductive method and the evidence built up as a result. There is no scientific evidence of a soul, so the ineluctable conclusion that a scientist must reach is that he is a soulless but conscious creature, just like any lion, giraffe or snail. I hope you can give me an answer on this point Thanks for the thoughts. There were plants and animals before humans. Why did the Cosmic Consciousness not accept their souls or consciousness and incorporate it into itself? This seems pretty 'Hegelian' to me as if we are heading towards a fixed end as a species. Thanks for the contribution. Jimmy .

Again, please quote the particular animal model and dosage in relation to humans. As you would imagine, humans have a heterogeneous response to drug administration (and I include caffeine in this description) with factors including genetics, presence of particular hormones or other drugs, presence or absence of disease, age, diet and external temperature, to quote just a few. Here is a good Link for you.

This is a simple thought without any heavyweight, or even lightweight, external validation. We know that the concept of soul is widespread in most religions. However, if you believe that evolution required neither a Divine 'push' and occurred as the result of a chain of rare accidents, then how would you regard the concept of soul? I am happy to define a soul in the following terms: Dictionary IMHO, I see what I personally think to be the manifestations of a soul, the following: compassion, empathy, love, hate... So, the love I have for my children and the fact that I hate the unjust comes from a source other than pure rationality. However, if you believe in the primacy of evolution without a Creator, then is it a must that you believe that no human, including yourself has a soul? Any views?

Link to Article I checked out the first paper you quoted and it refers to chronic caffeine ingestion in rats. In other words, overdosing a rat brain with caffeine causes withdrawal symptoms when the dosage is withdrawn. I think that there is methodological and analytical uncertainty until human systems are used. IMHO we should refer to the type of animal model and the dosage in our review of this subject.

There is evidence that caffeine protects from the disruption of the Blood Brain Barrier ('BBB' in the article). and, consequentially, ameliorates the onset of Alzheimers disease, or other neurological disorders. It is important to mention that a rabbit model was used and not human subjects. In short, it might be good for us but more testing is needed to draw a conclusion. Link to Journal

What an excellent and stimulating find. Well done. I have only read the first article up to this point and these are my thoughts on the mattter. The article is slightly misleading because humans have a much more complex set of decisions to make at any given time and (emotions, biochemistry and perception amongst other factors) dovetail in order for a decision to be made. Ants, on the other hand, seem to (unconsciously) prioritise a successful survival strategy and retain this 'collective' memory. Rationality and irrationality are value judgements that we make as humans on a type of behaviour. However, it is not human rationality being tested here but non-human behaviour, and I would be wary in ascribing human 'qualities to ants. As to the point about communication, ants are sensate individuals and chemical communication is apparently a strong factor in adaptive behaviour. Insect communication

I don't know dude, does this sound like an Anti Christ figure? Link

I don't know if I am alone in this belief, but I have seen rote memory used to recall answers for University examinations, and it works! Rote memory is not 'applied' learning but it is superb for essay-based examinations where students can memorise and then trot out a list of facts which make their essays robotic but with a very high factual content. IIRC, pre-medieval and medieval people had memories for facts which would be considered amazing today. We should also not ignore a rich history of the spoken word and story telling as a learning tool, it is a superb way of learning facts and lists. In short, reliance on external sources for information rather than the brain is not a dumbing down process but rather reflects neural plasticity, in my opinion, and is not surprising given the enormous amount of information we are exposed to on a day-to-day basis.

Being a spiritual person, who loves to muse on the beauty of nature, and can quite happily watch grass grow with a sense of peace and tranquility, I am fascinated by Fibonacci Numbers, especially when these occur in nature. http://www.fibonacci.name/images/sunflower2.jpg The above sequence occurs in flower petals, seed cones, leaf arrangements, honeybee genealogy and also rabbit breeding. Link However, aware that I am in a Science Forum where rationality is normally the order of the day (no pun intended). I want to throw this out to people. Is it a significant thing or is it just humans recognising patterns and then rationalising them later? Or is there something of deeper significance?

That was my motivation for the OP about the Mazda. I had heard, over a meal, from an engineer that the tip seals allowed a lot of leakage and a large loss of energy, leading to a lower efficiency than piston driven engines. I don't think the manufacturers ever denied this, and I suppose that 'you pay your money and make your choice'.

E coli is another example that comes to mind, which is not pathogenic normally, but, under certain circumstances (including the presence of a virulence-inducing plasmid) can adhere to and invade cells. Link to Review Abstract and Figures

There are a couple of misunderstandings here so I can offer the following to help you with ideas of genotype, phenotype and alleles.Link and a nice online textbook: Link

I would watch the animation and see what happens step by step. Link

This may help you. Just follow the chromosomes and chromatids from the mother cell: Cells Alive

Anyone care to comment on this article. There may room for doubt about the apparent consensus view of fossil fuel formation. If someone has overwhelming evidence on how fossil fuels are generated, please submit the original papers or references. Link to Abstract

Moontanman, failing to get on to the desktop computer, I had to turn to my wife's cellphone and it automatically sent out a response - without including any of my words. I need to read the paper thoroughly, that criticises Gold, and must say that I don't always trust information from single papers. JC does make a good case though. IMHO, we need to critically analyse and evaluate the current theories of how oil is made - the scientific consensus, if you will- in order to properly make a relatively objective judgement. Peace jimmy

A couple of questions come to mind Moontanman: 1) To which depth can bacteria exist in terms of miles under the crust (on average 20 km deep)? 2) More importantly, what is the evidence for biological origin of oil? The latter question is more important to me because I had considered this to be a 'fact' with a weight of empirical evidence in its favour. I also found this information and have to read it in more detail until I can formulate thoughts on the matter (thoughts, not opinions): Geological paper

Is Gold saying that most of the oil made by the Earth originates from meteors, then is made under conditions of high pressure and temperatures at depths about 45-90 miles deep inside the Earth? I am not doubting this Moontanman, but this overturns what I thought to be scientific orthodoxy, and I feel deeply uneasy that I believed the orthodox view without question. Any links to other articles?

Moontanman, good find. However, a note of caution: [emphasis is mine) ScienceDaily