dmaiski

*ahem*, that where you're wrong. I have fallen into a pool wile looking at my reflection! and a world without me in it, would be a far less interesting world, at the least from my prospective(being rarefied to the extreme and rather lacking in prospects in that situation ). also its a basic instinct of life to want to live, for as long as posible, even at the cost of evrything else.

all possible, but the 3 day corn would deplete land of resources faster then you can snap your fingers, and blue apples are tricky if you want them to be edible chocolate flavoured beans, you could make that in about 1-2 weeks of work in a lab if you had all the materials for generating vectors, a internet connection, and were lucky that it worked like you thought it would on the first try.

yes its probably the vacuole in that case just a realy pretty round one

a bit of input from me: 2. the word "life" existed long before the most fundamental biology was established, biologists hijacked the word for their own use 4. not my words, blame Descartes for Cogito ergo sum, and all those other Christian philosophers(not all of them, and not exclusively, but a lot) 5. an elaboration: basic mechanical forces feed into chemical reactions, which feed into metabolism, which feed into multicellular organisms, which feed into civilisation(an organism made of individuals, not limited to humans(you would think ants were unheard of) which feed into planet wide ecosystems, which feed into gravitational frameworks(on a galactic scale), then universal scale, then if you go into advanced physics, multidimensional systems, probability, then you reach the end of the line you encompass everything as a system that is in a state of flux. (as i said this is the most difficult definition to grasp)

the skin on human feet is able to grow, or shed layers or skin this allows it to go from being very thin and sensitive, to what is basicly hard leather it all depends on how much you use them (barefoot) since most people dont walk around barefoot, the feet of most people are very soft, so its painful to walk barefoot people who habitually walk barefoot are far less sensitive to this.

you are right, "till the end of the universe" is a really long time to live... i would get bored, then do things to entertain myself, leave a trail of chaos behind me, and then probably try to destroy said universe out of curiosity and boredom but this takes time, id estimate it would take me 50,000-1,000,000 years to complete my bucket list (im constantly adding to it), so, if i can i would like to live long enough to achieve the destruction of the universe(i know i have such small goals for my life) immortality just lets you finish whatever you ever wanted to do, then go out with a bang that will leave a mark... its not that i am afraid to die(im actualy curious) but first i want to see evrything, and do evrything. and since thats infinite, it means i need alot of time to do it in "The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy offers this definition of the word "Infinite". Infinite: Bigger than the biggest thing ever and then some. Much bigger than that in fact, really amazingly immense, a totally stunning size, "wow, that's big", time. Infinity is just so big that by comparison, bigness itself looks really titchy. Gigantic multiplied by colossal multiplied by staggeringly huge is the sort of concept we're trying to get across here." The Restaurant at the End of the Universe (its a book, you know with words in it?)

yes... on second thought we do! go forth and kill them all to the last unborn egg and salt the earth and blacken the skies! actually if your planning a mass genocide, aim to kill of 90% of H. sapien first, those pesky buggers are clogging up the planet as it is [insert mad scientist laguh here]

small circle is the nucleous, large circle is what i think is the vacuole in future, dont circle on microscope images, it makes it hard to figure out what your looking at on second thought large circle may be an artifact (ie air bubble traped under the slide)

if it can survive 2100C past the boiling point of carbon you are S.O.L. and I would have to ask what exactly is it, and can i have some? also if that is the case i would suggest either freezing it at 1K or nuking it with a 15MT tac-nuke also: "Lethal intracellular freezing can be avoided if cooling is slow enough to permit sufficient water to leave the cell during progressive freezing of the extracellular fluid. That rate differs between cells of differing size and water permeability: a typical cooling rate of about 1°C/minute is appropriate for many mammalian cells after treatment with cryoprotectants such as glycerol or dimethyl sulphoxide, but the rate is not a universal optimum." thank you wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryopreservation#Risks

my immediate reaction to this was "yes, only humans could be so stupid" 1. do we know animals cant communicate? (actually they can, we are just to stupid to understand them) 2. humans need food, food=animals/plants, plants need animals to survive, animals need plants to survive 3. if there was only cows, humans, and grass on earth, 1 virus would evolve and kill us all in a matter of years(HIV 2.0) 4. evolution likes diversity (actually it just doesn't like cleaning up the mess) 5. humans are the most poorly evolved, redundant, stupidly designed, inefficient beings on earth. (their only redeeming trait is that they are stubborn furless monkeys) 6. if you are looking for the top creature on earth, look at a tree, possibly the most cleverly made creature on earth also when we reach the point where we control the weather, freely manipulate planet wide ecosystems, have flying tanks, and can shoot plasma bolts from our eyes, we will be more machine then biology, so species wont mater that much to us, nor will planets, the only thing we will be interested in is fuel for power plants, cooling systems, and how many yottaFLOPS we can fit into 1mm^3 so we can run even faster simulations.

yes, that is the verry liberal view of "if evolution didnt get rid of it, it must be good" it would be a great view if evolution was a "perfect" system, without any loopholes loopholes like pheramones, which allow a "weak" individual, to be extremly sucsessfull at recproduction, even if the other traits the individual posesses are disadventageous but thats too complex an example (back to that bacteria i was discussing) the chemical it produces, forces other individuals to reproduce with it this subverts the process of natural selection, random mating, and spreads whatever traits that individual had, the benificial ones and the non beneficial ones, throughout the whole species, untill the whole species poseses the mutation for the chemical if that individual had numerous bad traits, then the whole colony will now posess all those bad traits in high numbers this will result in the whole colony being selected out by evolution its an example of how a sexualy "good" trait can be "bad" for a population by introducing disadvantegeous traits that come packaged with the "good" sexual trait and this ignores enviormental selection, in favour of sexual selection, and is not allways beneficial to the species as a whole also has anyone heared of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection#Exponential_growth_in_female_preference

Ok, simple put i agree that there is a genetic component in sexual attraction i DISAGREE that there is a gene, or set of genes, that specifically make you "gay" i think these genes control other aspect of human personality, which as a result predispose an individual towards a more open sexuality i base this idea on: 1. how many studies have shown that "gay" people are usually more socially adapted, better parents, and generally better people then straight people 2. on the fact that it is a simpler explanation 3. i cant imagine how such a specific mechanism as a "gay gene" would evolve, since it is: very complex, needs 2 sets of functions(for male and female), genome wide alterations to gene expression(at least), and its not beneficial(ends the individuals line) (no metaphors, no similes, nothing to confuse anyone)

achieving transcendence... not that likely, most humans cant even reach 4 dimensional thought let alone use 4d mechanics. and yes transcendence is, basically, moving up 1 or 2 dimensions.

you could also say it it the carbon backbone. all life is built using carbon chains as the backbone to the molecule, its just convenient, stable, and it can make alot of bonds. carbon gives life structure

that is just a philosophy argument: if you are being very strict, any trait that lower the competitive advantage of a species is bad if you are being a bit more liberal, any trait that lowers the species competitive advantage to the point of extinction is bad if you are being very liberal, no trait is bad because they are, in the end, natural occurrences that are bound to happen i was looking at it from the strict perspective and decided that saying "specific disadvantageous traits that lower the survivability of the individual by lowering the competitive advantage of the species against its major competitors, while still being selected due to a species specific advantage through an increase of the likeness of the trait being passed on by sexual reproduction" could be abbreviated to "bad" and people would understand. I'm sorry I was foolish and optimistic, I forgot that this is the internet...

those are socio economic and technological advances, and warfare with superior weapons, tactics, and numbers, mixed with new, potent diseases that were developed in the cramped environments of cities, not really evolutionary pressure

ok, you say that i am wrong in what i say, i probably am. there is no research that i have seen to show: how sexual attraction works in homo/hetro individuals what receptors, signalling systems, or processes, are responsible for it how these genes that have been identified have any effect on sexual preference (xq28 is a MELENOMA ACOCIATED ANTIGEN, AND IS RESPONCIBLE FOR AUTISIM, AND ANXIETY (mental diseases, and personality disorders)) so based on what i know i must make an assumption on how such a system COULD work to induce some form of predisposition to homosexuality if you have evidence to the contrary please post it if you have a better theory on how it could work post it if you want to criticize my assumptions, provide better assumptions, ones that are more likely to work if you have research that shows how such a system works, to induce attraction post it that is a constructive argument by the way, you do not seem to understand that an association study shows the association between 2 things like people eat peaches and cream an association studies dose not explain how it works, why peaches and cream complement each other, or how the chemical interactions with the taste receptors trigger specific neural circuits that tell you that peaches and cream are tasty waving around an association study, as conclusive proof that there is a specific process occurring and not a side effect of another process is meaningless because an association study dose not differentiate between the two

really to achieve true immortality you would need adaptive regeneration, ie a system where any damage is rapidly repaired, and the region that was damaged is optimized to prevent further damage it would be closer to a controlled version of cancer then it would be to normal cellular function also initial work into true physical immortality would most likely be done with nano-machines, so memory wont really be that much of a problem since memory decay can be prevented, and you can use your whole body as a brain normal immortality "Methuselah complex" is pretty limited in its usefulness, after all what is the point of living for ever if all it takes to kill you is some minor brain damage the t1000 is a good example of a being that really is, for all practical purposes, immortal. anything short of total destruction will not damage it. a nano-morph is really the ideal immortal being, every "cell" in its body can function as muscle, brain, skin, bone, digestive tissue, and sensory organ. it allows it to easily replace loss of limb, negate most physical damage (hydrostatic shock probably could knock it down, by disabling large scale organisation temporarily), and back up memories in other area and replace lost processing power by allocating other cells to the process.

how can i say this it is difficult to predispose someone to a specific psychological response to a very specific observed trait, especially if that trait is as variable as gender interpretation and is not always straight forward it is far easier to develop a mental circuit to do the same task and it will be far more effective (orders of magnitude easier) mental circuits develop after birth, based on experience, and independent of genetics hence it is unlikely to be genetic occam's razor (the simplest solution is often the correct one) to make you genetically sexually attracted to a specific gender would involve the modification of almost very receptor you have, and that would have to happen once for male once for females, on the same gene im not saying it is impossible just very unlikely to happen it is also almost exclusively done chemically in nature (pheromones, they don't work on humans any more) on the other hand, making a predisposition to a certain mental circuit for a general behaviour (like conforming to society, we have this trait, its called peer pressure) is easy, mainly because it can be tied into the learning process the problem is learning is not an active process (you don't do it, it just happens on its own) and it is influenced by experience (very heavily influenced) so experience can change what you learn, even if the experience is non specific or loosely related it can effect subsequent development that is what the "gay gene" is, a misnomer for a a trait dictating basic human behaviour (social interaction) my problem is not that homosexuality can have a genetic factor, it can, and probably dose, but a genetic factor that is keyed SPECIFICITY to homo- or hetro- sexuality is too complex, it requires more changes to genes, receptors, and metabolic pathways, then there are coded for on the Y chromosome. It would also be highly unreliable, prone to misidentification, noticeable in its action, and always on, or it would be very slow to react to stimulus. It would also mean that a homosexual would need numerous mutations to become homosexual, making them very rare, since these traits code for sexual attraction and loss of a few genes in a population would be selected out. yes, yes it is (not that much but it was colourfull)

you are right, 7000C is too high, you only need to hit 5000C to boil carbon rapid freezing causes stress fractures in materials that cannot compress quickly thus breaking them down slow freezing only damages biological materials because water crystallizes, most cells do not have free water in them, it is all chaperoned and controlled because free water can cause undesirable reactions anything that dose survive this will, at the verry least, be frozen solid and unable to react at 73K above zero while stored in a ice crystal and you can burn water, after you split the individual molecules apart i was going on the overkill assumption "i have water that has [something horrible] in it and it will survive an autoclave/can not be autoclaved" working along those lines i though of viable methods of sterilizing the water or at least preventing [something horrible] from doing something horrible i understand that the question was only talking about drinking water, but an interesting thought experiment is too much fun to pass up and may be usefull at some point but if your just looking to purify water the best way to do it is steam condensation, followed closely reverse osmosis, then by carbon filtration,

that the interesting thing, i don’t imagine A is actually B, i decide to like A for being A (or at least a flavour of A) i can't stand stupid manly men, they irritate me (but i dislike the stupidity, not the man) you see you may not like beets on their own but have you tried the various recipes that use beets? im sure you have never tried borscht it tastes nothing like beets... its all a mater of opinion, perspective, and preference(for personality traits not gender) but we have strayed from the topic quite far back on track IS BEING STRAIGHT GENETIC!!!(ie the STRAIGHT gene) (did you expect me to say gay? how silly of you you know me better then that) (ignore the fact that genes are actually super-coiled and about as far from straight as you can possibly be) the previous statement will blind you if you stare at it too long !!beware!! also isn’t picking up a fetish in a way proof that the gene for sexual attraction to X gender isn’t actually a gene for sexual attraction to X gender but more likely just a gene for sexual attraction(non specific), and mutated copies can give you a broader or less specific attraction, or limit your attraction to more specific items, or make you unable to be attracted to other things when a certain trigger is initiated. You are limiting the gay gene to making people gay, genes aren’t like that, they usually serve 10 different functions, influence 100 processes, and moderate another 500 linked processes

me i chose to do so because it seemed like fun at the time and yes it was a conscious choice, at least for me it was i don’t know about you but the sexual response in my body is linked to certain mental patterns when those patterns are used i get an erection, when they aren’t, i don’t, i get a sexual response to whatever i find attractive, also things that i can pervert for my own pleasure, the idea of pleasure or the prospect of it are also quite useful for this unfortunately few humans get anywhere close to understanding how the software in their minds work so i cant imagine many people are able to grasp these concepts, at least not without a lot of work (if you think im wrong, answer me this question "how dose your mind work") (its rhetorical any actual answers will make you sound crazy)

sounds like love dont worry it took 48 years to find the higgs boson and now i'm actually curious as to what your idea is email me at dmitri.maiski@gmail.com if you want im not a professor but i do have a MSc in genetics

overall its a bad trait, the species of bacteria will not survive because of that trait when in competition with another species that 5% energy loss in a bacteria is fatal in the long run, it means it CAN NOT COMPETE with other species the sexually favourable trait gave it an advantage in the local area(its species) while at the same time giving it a massive disadvantage in the global field (being wherever it's habitat is) that is the point i am trying to communicate to you and yes this trait will be passed on, because sexually speaking it is highly favourable (other species do not care how sexy you are, your big red ass is lunch stupid baboon) not a valid statment because baboons have no real predators

you know this how? saying you cant help it is rather silly, you can say you don’t want to saying you cant help it means its a compulsion i don’t know about you but ive never felt compelled to ba attracted to anyone ive been attracted to their minds, their bodies, personality, once even their confidence in them selves(ie they were really cocky) it may be because i am bi, or it may be the cause of me being bi, but there is allays a reason why i am attracted to someone now i may be wrong, ive read alot, talked to people, and have accumulated numerous experiences and based on all these experiences, i would say attraction is mental you respond to a person because you are attracted to a person because you like them, not their gender otherwise you would have an erection in response to any vaguely female shaped object in existence even if you caught a small glimpse of it