jimmydasaint

I have just completed it. But why do you need this information DJ? Are you a member of the Intelligence Services?

OK, so humans evolved to not synthesise the essential amino acids: Arginine Histidine Isoleucine Leucine Lysine Methionine Phenylalanine Threonine Tryptophan Valine However, does the absence of the genes for synthesis of the above comprise an energy-saving mechanism? Additionally, are the genes inactivated by transposable elements?

SFN can, in my opinion, increase the field of interest in Science by inviting 'Associate Members' to contribute to the Forum. These can be 'celebrities' or well-known members of the public with a bit of scientific knowledge and may have something to contribute to any part of the Forum. I was thinking, in particular, of Philosophy, Ethics or Religion sub Forums. However, pure Science topics also have something to gain from external input. I am not talking about A-list celebrities here, but I would love to see the likes of Konnie Huq (2(i) degree in Economics, Cambridge University), a T.V. broadcaster and journalist, contribute to our Forum.

I think the gels have shown a success: Link Moreover, IMO, it would have been unethical to leave the women in the control group uneducated about sexual behaviour during the study.

This is a personal opinion until I find some supporting articles. Birth rate is high in poorer countries, which tend to have agrarian cultures. Infant mortality rates are also high due to diseases. Therefore a farmer wishing to pass on his small holding to his descendants wishes to pass it on to sons, and to increase the chances of survival, tries for many sons to succeed him. This is a horrible over simplification but an opinion at present. How do we control populations? I would think that we have to put major funds into improving the wealth and healthcare of poorer nations so that they will need to have fewer children in order to continue to make a life for themselves. But...if the population continues to grow, then IMO it may be necessary to reclaim vast areas of desert areas using mineral oil to hold the soil together and by the planting of drought-resistant seeds. And then to move people there to farm their own small 'terraces' in order to feed themselves. Or, we continue to use up most of the world's resources ourselves and sod the rest of the world! Somehow, I think we will assuage our consciences with rock concerts, one-off days for collecting money and then forget the rest of the world for the rest of the year.

Charon Y, I don't quite understand that statement. Would there not be selective pressure to maintain synthesis of essential biochemical components of the diet? It seems counter-intuitive to me at the moment. I would think that an organism capable of essential amino acid synthesis would be able to out compete a rival which cannot do the same, and get a reproductive advantage.

'Athiests don't band together to kill people?' Sorry, but I think both religious and atheistic people have their fair share of extremists or lunatics. If I may offer a few examples: Link Link Link I really hate quote-mining but I had to show that there is equal blame on religious extremists and atheists. Moreover, I have given my opinion that people who have chosen a religion purely on the basis of faith, without reasoning as a filter, suppress their doubts by militant or angry behaviour manifested in angry posts in this Forum. I can only give the rather poor example of a man attracted to homosexuality who ardently proclaims his manliness by his anti-gay words.

I think that religion, or at least Abrahamic religions, provide no middle ground. If you believe in evolution then evolution theory has no concept of a soul. Conventional theists consider that the soul is to be judged for his/her deeds. If you believe in a God that created the Universe and fine tuned it, then you have to accept evolution but also accept that the soul is a different concept from what theists would believe. Instead of Deus ex machina one would have to believe in a more complicated, inchoate version of the soul. The hatred comes from people who suppress their doubts about God and then knock down anyone who even comes close to criticising religion. It is a way of coping with doubt IMHO. I have doubts about the existence of God, to be honest, however my reasoning is comfortable with living with doubt. In my view, I have hope of a hereafter which is far greater than the meagre life span of a human being. It is a hope that, tragically, no atheist can share.

In short, Allah is only revealing His name to Arabs since most people do not speak Arabic. And He sees fit to reveal Himself in various fruits or vegetables and not in terms of reason and logic that would appeal to all peoples directly. This is a silly thread and adds nothing at all to your faith, but good luck to you, if this really helps you in your life. By the way, I once saw a galleon shape, and the shape of a man's face in some clouds - what could this possibly mean?

Ah! In this case, I see no problem in lying to cover up the presence of the Jews in order to save their lives. That leaves the Gold Standard of truth as an absolute moral value in tatters. I cannot see that anyone would tell the truth in these circumstances. I thought about this before I went to bed last night and then when I woke up this morning and... I have to say that I cannot hold the truth as an absolute moral value but, instead, as an absolute moral standard. The truth cannot be seen as an absolute but society forces us to compromise all the time, and tell lies. I agree with you on this point. However, the only way that truth can be held as an absolute moral value, only if society changes completely and truth is held as an ideal that is attainable by most of the people. If we collectively hold the truth to be an absolute virtue and the idea is soldwith the same relish as we sell fast foods - who knows? I don't think that anyone who believed in the Final Solution would hide Jews anyway. I agree that the truth has to be seen in a moral relativist light, but I would like to see the question of slavery (without the permission of the victim) to be seen in a relativistic context. I cannot see it, at present. That is, unless you know differently.

Can you please post back with what you mean by the Nazi dilemma. I could not find it with a quick search. Thanks buddy. I have wondered about this one. And yes I have told 'little lies' and still continue to do so. But if there is a moral absolute, then I regard truth as the most important; as a sort of Gold Standard' to which we can aspire. I don't know of a way to properly cover up a surprise if you want to hold on to truth as a moral absolute. Silence perhaps? Although silence has its own problems doesn't it?

pioneer, can you please provide evidence for what you are saying, in the form of links to papers. Thank you.

I don't agree with the latter part of this quotation (about anarchy) but, most of it still rings true today, as it did originally. Rudolf Rocker

Link to paper Are you saying here that in the resting state some polypeptides or fractions of polypepties remain unfolded with hydrophilic amino acids facing towards the solvent water and then, after activation, flipping into a folded tertiary structure with hydrophilic residues on the inside? Moreover, have you also considered that, during cell resistance to external 'pressures', the cells may also be exhibiting a tensegrity reaction by changing gene expression in a feedback response? Professor Ingber Tensegrity

I don't think everyone is naive enough to believe everything that the Government, the military or the media broadcasts. However, we are not in the 'Nam era any more; we are in the information age, where there is a vast amount of information available about what is happening on the ground through blogs and alternative media sites. However, what annoys me is that the military, the Government and the media are trying the propaganda approach in the 21st century. I tend to believe, personally, that we are receiving information from highly filtered information. I have been reading articles from Professor Noam Chomsky and consider them an alternative to what the media broadcast. Professor Chomsky In the book Manufacturing Consent by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky, a scientific (or pseudoscientific) method was used to analyse the words of the media, in particular. The two professors discovered five filters through which media news and other items were broadcast, which corresponded to a propaganda model proposed by Professor Herman: Professor Herman's Propaganda Model

Great topic Butters. I want to kick off with a couple of moral absolutes. The first is lying. To my mind, telling the truth is the foundation of one's character and when that crumbles, it has a disastrous effect on what we call the personality (as I have personally seen). However, I have not managed to keep it as a moral absolute and have told 'little white lies' to protect people from embarrassment etc... So I fall short of the standards to which I aspire. Secondly, being a slave to another human being. Again, in my opinion, I find it an anathema to be oppressed by another (faulty) human by the shackles of slavery. We can see it at first hand during female trafficking for prostitution in the West. I cannot think of a more degrading thing to put another human through. Freedom, true freedom (IMHO) allows the human personality or ego to develop, flower and meet its true potential. Slavery/oppression robs the personality of coming to fruition in exactly the same way as a murder.

Each to his own, my friend. Certainly sounds more interesting than listening to long and boring sermons.

The concept of existence has been addressed by Descartes in his famous statement: 'cogito ergo sum' - 'I think, therefore I am'. Link to Review In short, there is a thinker - a mind - a filter, a machine capable of incorporation and reconfiguring sensory information but the existence of a body is inferred and not proved. (Please correct me if I am wrong in making this assertion).

Unfortunately, it is a bit more complicated than that. I have read the Quran and Torah and believe that the God of Christianity, Judaism and Islam is the same, with a few variations. Therefore, you would have to refer to the Abrahamic God then to specify the others. I am attracted to the deistic concept of God, with a twist of this and that. Why does it matter to you that we specify the identity of God as a Creative metaphysical entity? Surely the relationship with God is a personal one, preferably without the intercession of a 'priesthood'?

I think civilian deaths have been deliberately misrepresented. But I have clearly indicated that civilian deaths are inevitable. However, remember that we are working with an elected Government who are very concerned with civilian casualties because they will lose votes and power, and a new Government may be voted in which is more hostile to Western interests. And I agree with you that we are all desensitised to news of casualties abroad, unless they are soldiers. However, we can only legitimise our campaign in Afghanistan with the help of locals. Article by the London Guardian

Good find Cap'n. What disturbed me was the amount of civilian deaths that are 'covered up' or misrepresented. For example, in one raid, 7 children were killed by attack from a 'black ops' Special Forces team. But I suppose collateral damage is expected when your targets are derived from the local population. If I were a cynical person, I could attribute this leak as a prelude for moving all Western forces out of Afghanistan. Lucky I am not a cynic...

Try the link on Leather Charlie boy! It should do the job, or carry a guarantee of some sort and it is only £7.50 to buy.

I believe in God, a reasonably personal way, according to my understanding and have stated that in previous posts. The whole reason for this sub-Forum is to discuss matters in a rational and easy going way. I don't think this section should be removed but I think if you are unable to behave or react in a calm and well-thought out manner, YOU should leave this and go to another Forum. No offence to you, brother, but you cannot go around insulting others. Incidentally, I see atheism as a position of rationality and truth - it shows that people are thinking about faith. I see organised religion, as it is presently, as 'jobs for the boys'. People can find gainful employment for life based on apparent belief in God, which is not questioned by the 'flock'. To my believing mind, priests or ministers are an insult to true faith. A priesthood which claims authority from God and misuses it as it does deserves the reproach it receives from the general thinking public. I deplore the idea of a 'priesthood' intervening between you and God. That is a very personal relationship which needs no-one in the middle. Your idea of God can develop from the viewpoint of an intelligence that can create a Universe or Universes. That is a pretty awesome starting point.

As for the genetics, some melanocyte problems in the mouse model shows recessive, co-dominant and dominant mutations. These mutations could be deletions or substitutions causing shorter proteins than the normal or wild-type protein. This paper needs careful reading but makes a bit of sense: In eukaryotes, the messenger RNA made from the DNA in the chromosome is processed by splicing which is akin to a chopping and reassemblng of the message in the correct order before the ribosomes change it into protein. The bits of message which are chopped out are called introns and the bits which are translated into protein are called exons. For example this statement can be processed to make sense: MUM, WHO IS THE SCYLLA TO MY RELUCTANT CHARYBDIS, AND BESIDES, CAUSES ME NO END OF GRIEF, LOOKED BEAUTIFUL IN HER BLUE DRESS can be processed to cut out details (introns) thus: MUM LOOKED BEAUTIFUL IN HER BLUE DRESS (exons). This final 'message' can then be translated into 'protein'. Link Remember, this is only one genetic disorder that causes melanocyte problems and that injury or infections can also cause heterochromia. Link