jimmydasaint

You were not completely clear about your aim for the thread. However, I think you have made a finding that has been known for some time. The case of the Ti plasmid when Agrobacterium tumefaciens passes on its genes to certain plants is a classic example. http://ec.asm.org/cgi/content/full/4/6/1102 Would you please cross-reference, read the papers and discuss with us. Thanks. Jimmy

A recent speech has made me wonder about the data from the Antarctic about global warming. There does not seem to be much evidence for an overall temperature rise when I have examined two sources. The first is a research article: http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/anttemps.htm and the other is a paper from 1998: http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=/ANS/ANS10_02/S095410209800025Xa.pdf&code=3f4f6e8220d6be5c3e3ad43a422129d3 Can someone clarify some of the difficulties involved in the temperature data.

Where can you buy the chewing gum from?

Interesting... I was thinking about the possibility of a chimp genius arising by chance in a troupe and then having to find a mate. From what has been said so far, it looks like an intelligent and socially aware chimp would be far more suited to finding a mate and propagating his/her genes than one that is introverted. If the same rules apply as to humans then this is a sort of prouf that extremely high intelligence is selected against by lack of mating potential. PS: It took me 24 hours to think of the 'prouf' thing. How sad!

Interesting perspective and thank you for the contribution. I am trying to apply this to humans and I think that the environment, in particular, the culture of an area, is also important in human behaviour. However, it may be possible to extend the idea of culture to other animals. For example, in killer whales, there are 'cultures' that would eat humans and 'cultures' that won't. Adaptation to the norms of a culture is important and it backs up what you say. OK, I could go along with that. And this is what I was trying to get at. Introspection is not a particularly positive trait if it is a dominant behaviour. Which led me to the question in the first place. A practical genius does not have to be high in intelligence but a 'thinker' might be a problem for a troupe (thanks to Jill for correcting my spelling).

I know that nerve endings are jangling from some recent arguments about evolution but this is a fact-finding mission... I am making a hypothesis here: I hypothesise that if an animal, let's say a chimp, is more intelligent and designs a more useful tool for digging up juicy insects, the behaviour will be seen in a more positive light by the 'tribe' and the behaviour copied. Another hypothesis: If a chimp is as intelligent as the rest of the troop but shows aberrant behaviour or abnormal traits, i.e. signs of synesthesia or OCD, or even the aftermaths of a disease, then it is a perceived negative behaviour and will be rejected by the rest of its troop. The question is: If a chimp arises with a 'genius' IQ for the chimp world, what are the chances of it being shunned by the community? If it is shunned then it has implications for the evolution of high intelligence in hominids.

I think the idea of a sub forum is excellent. This would be a sort of journal club beloved of team leaders to force post-docs, PhD's and undergraduates to be introduced to the rigour of critical evaluation of papers - an essential skill. However, I would propose that the sub forum is like the Science News section where separate papers are presented for critique. However, there should be some direction, e.g. by specialists, otherwise the sub forum will 'die' from a lack of contributions. Actual critique of a paper is a long process if it is to be done properly. It took me days to prepare a critique of the first paper I was given pre-publication. I had to double check the information using books; much easier with the Internet though... I suggest that we should consider papers that are general enough to be understood by most people though, for example papers referring to global warming or latest findings in palaeontology.

I agree there is a confirmation bias when atypical behaviour is shown. However, your posts have clarified the issue. So, can I summarise? 1. There is a genetic element to Aspergers Syndrome; 2. People classes as 'nerds' or 'geeks' have a higher-than-normal proportion of Asperger's Syndrome individuals; 3. People classified as 'nerds' or 'geeks' have unusually high numbers of introverted personalities. If that is borne out by evidence then I would still unequivocally chill out with all sectors of the community anyway regardless of labels. My curiosity was in finding a genetic element to what the English would call eccentric behaviour. I have 2 highly intelligent friends with unusual behaviours that could be classified as either eccentric/geeky/nerdy and I was just innocently musing about the causes. However, we should not forget that the environment has a tremendously potent effect on behaviour as well.

Aha! Thanks for that information about Aspergers JS. However, it is also possible that a large percentage of science or engineering 'nerds' make that choice due to their single-minded fascination with the subject. But, hold on, does that not mean Obsessive Compulsive Disorder? And does that not imply a genetic element?

Newcastle is a modern city with a beautiful city centre and folks with a gentle ironic sense of humour. The River Tyne is a symbol of the lifeblood of the city which was once based upon the shipbuilding industry. Hell, it's just like Glasgow big yin! You'll love it.

I hope no offence is taken here, and none is meant. However I am using as my definition the following: Nerd - A person who is single-minded or accomplished in scientific or technical pursuits but is felt to be socially inept. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nerd I just wondered how much of 'nerdy' behaviour is actually inherited and how much can be attributed to the environment? Moreover, is it causing a social distancing from more aggressive, selfish and downright nasty people which are to be found in most workplaces? (Incidentally , I grew up initially as a streetwise Glasgow boy into a man interested in everything but master of nothing).

iNow, how do mate. This thread has developed into a fascinating discussion, exploring personal philosophies. However, I am quite interested in understanding if there is a genetic cause for those people who find it difficult to imagine what others are thinking. Also, are there any animal models for empathetic behaviour? Moreover, is there research into the imagining of 'other worlds?' For example, I saw an interesting documentary where two professors visited an African tribe to experience hallucinatory visions and described seeing other imaginary worlds where there were serpents that communicated telepathically to them. Both professors saw mostly the same type of 'other world' creatures and the tribesmen saw almost exactly the same creatures themselves. This would argue for the similarity of the brain's architecture despite different cultural biases. Finally, and I hope you can put me out of my misery on this one, are we all, as human beings, on a spectrum of OCD or schizotypal personalities? Additionally, are there genetic studies, or even genealogical studies to show if OCD or schizotypal behaviour more common in certain religious families and less prevalent in less religiously biased families? I think you are being true to the OP and are being genuine in your efforts to stay on topic. However, it is a difficult and personal topic for many people to address.

I agree with CharonY here. It sounds like you would need to perform cell fractionation following the radiolabelling of in vitro cultured cells with 15-N, for example. By careful, stepwise cell fractionation, you could track the radioactive cell fraction from ribosomes ---> Golgi --->Golgi vesicles ---> cell membrane, and further if necessary. Alternatively using the anti - protein antibodies (monoclonal preferably), you could perform immunoprecipitations of cell proteins that have internalised 15-N or similar isotopes and do a 'time line' again. Remember that background 'noise' will be filtered out by using monoclonal antibodies with a tight specificity for the membrane protein.

This is from a man who makes bookcases that Homer Simpson would laugh at, but... would it make sense to have a boiler or sealed lagged container as an intermediate which is heated by barbecue charcoal (readily available). Then the hosepipe is attached to the boiler and the flow rate can be adjusted, but bear in mind the problem of lost heat as the water starts to flow quickly.

My Dad was sacked from the Fire Service - it could be cos he believed in fighting fire with fire... God this thread is getting a bit tense, but rape jokes- no way, ever, mate.

Superb and humbling find. Do the corvids understand the problem or are they just very able problem solvers?

You can experience flying sensations by using atropines/scopalamine: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3403100410.html If it is magic you are suggesting then you can achieve the sensations of flying using artificial means.

I am in a genuine search to understand why human emotion is so important and, in an evolutionary scale, important to survival. In particular, I fail to see why making others laugh would be a valuable trait. I have searched for a list of human emotions and found an attempt to list emotions on a Buddhist website (to be taken with a pinch of salt). Here are a few examples: http://www.buddhamind.info/leftside/actives/drama/key-word.htm From an evolutionary point of view, was there a point to the great comedians of the past and present? Here's one, below called Ross Noble, who has an amazing ability to think laterally and on-the-spot. I wonder if it is this quality that is more important in a survival sense than comedic output? Comments welcome.

What percentage of batteries show this property on average? This sounds like an interesting experiment to do.

I don't expect many hits on this Thread but I have not found the answer to this enquiry. Imagine the scene - an excited Yr 9 class is following up displacement reactions where a more reactive metal will displace a less reactive metal from its compound. For example, the students add magnesium metal to copper sulfate and immediately notice that the copper is precipitated. However, a lot of groups also notice streams of bubbles coming off various reactions and these are discounted as 'side reactions.' by me. Does anyone know if I am right, and if so, what are the side reactions? Any clues will be appreciated.

Well, I don't understand it, that is the short answer. If we are looking at the DNA scale and then at the accumulation of mutations in both the plant and the moth that is its sole pollinator, I need to get answers on how they were both so lucky that they escaped being wiped out. I just wondered if master gene switches were the answer. As an example which does not seem to be related to epigenetics but seems an example of biochemical pleiotropy, calmodulin, the calcium binding protein, seems to be responsible for beak sizes in finches. That is an astonishing find because it allows finches to find microhabitats - some will live in the trees some lower down due to beak length. This, believe it or not, was the inspiration for my O.P.

You are not missing anything. I assumed that the yucca plant had different selection pressures from the moth. For example, different diseases, different predators (moth), different biogeological pressures for the plants as a result of non-motility and requirement to photosynthesise. But the pressure for fertilisation of the plant by pollination has resulted in a niche for the moth. I just wondered if there was rapid evolution for one species possibly by mutation of genes with pleiotropic effects. Maybe this thread should be moved to speculations.

I know it's crazy but at least the holidays are good Tree. Love the radio station link mate. Have been looking up the music that I grew up with (UFO, Ted Nugent, Oasis, Verve and Underground Dub and Reggae)

OK - no bites huh? I asked two questions but they merged into incomprehensibility or inconsequentiality. Let me try again: 1. Co-evolution must involve different selection pressures - any ideas on which pressures? 2. Evolution has worked at multi speeds in the past. Is it possible that evolution of 'master switches' of genes allows Nature to put the foot on the evolution accelerator pedal?

Wow!! I am humbled by such talent and such a wide range of knowledge in this Forum. As a postgrad with a couple of post-docs behind me, I feel so thick here. However, my teaching schedule is to teach Yr 9's Monday, Yr 7, 9, 10, 11 Tuesday, Yr's 12, 9, two bottom set Yr 11's on Wednesday, Yr 12, Yr 11, Yr 9, Yr 10 on Thursday. Yrs 7, 9, 11, 8 on Friday. I think the people with the most to learn are the teachers, not the students. CERTAINLY true in my case. Good luck to all of you.