Mokele

Nifty, though of course there's some gaps for species that are under-examined or haven't been examined.

So you essentially want to deny legal representation to those accused of crimes? Fantastic plan there, ace. What's next, just shoot them without a trial? Here's a thought: what happens if someone is falsely accused? Now, I know you've watched too much Law & Order: SVU for this to ever cross your mind, but this does happen. How are they supposed to get legal representation when every lawyer is too scared of defending the wrong person to defend anyone?

It's the caterpillar of the Elephant Hawk Moth

I too have seen the edge of the universe.

Nope, no requested file name.

And I pointed out why it's fundamentally flawed. Microtubules are NOT nanotubes. They have different chemistry, different structures, different properties, etc. You cannot meaningfully apply information about one to the other. Do you even realize what microtubules *are*? Carbon nanotubes are cylinders of nothing but carbon atoms bonded together via covalent bonds. Microtubules are cylinders made of proteins, each of which has hundreds of atoms of various sorts (mostly carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen), bound together using hydrogen bonds. The *only* similarity between the two is that they're small cylinders. The molecular structures could hardly be more different. When did I say it does? I got involved in this thread because of your claims about microtubules and nanotubes, nothing more.

I would, except I've lost the CD in my recent move.

You're evading question and refusing to provide evidence. Consider this your last warning.

Ok, so, background: A few months ago, my computer had a major screw-up due to the corruption of some important windows files (Win XP, SP2). I managed to fix it, but in the process, one of my programs (CorelDraw) stopped working, but in a weird way. So, here's the issue: I cannot open this program from the exe - windows starts trying to do some install process and asks for the CD, which I've lost. But, oddly enough, if I double-click on a file type associate with the program, it opens immediately. No problems, no errors, it does everything it's supposed to. My intuition says Windows is having the problem, not the program, but I have no idea how to fix it. Any thoughts?

So, I can determine your muscle physiology by looking at bricks? Because that's what you're saying. You're trying to apply results from a DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT MATERIAL to another. Then he needs to open any cell biology textbook written in the past 30 years. We know very, very well how microtubules form. Saying "I know a guy" isn't a source. I know B. H. Fooduukum, and he knows everything about everything, and he says I'm right! See how well that works? If I have a functioning car, and I break various pieces, I can see what's needed for it to run and what isn't. Paint, nope. Doors, nope. Fuel pump, yep. This is basic science - if breaking a part changes a property, that part must have something to do with that property. Apologize and we'll forgive you. Really? What evidence? I've asked for evidence. Over and over again. All you have is hand-waving theoretical gibberish. You can convince me easily - SHOW ME EVIDENCE. Real evidence, in real neurons and real brains. Not theory, experimental evidence. This is the basis of what all science is - you must present empirical evidence to support your claims. Theory and math are not enough. So far, you have failed to produce such evidence. And if you think this is hard, you've never had to go through the peer review system.

He makes several very basic, obvious errors. First and foremost, he ignores the role of chemical secretions. Cells can detect distances and the like via chemical concentration gradients, and most cells constantly pump out signalling molecules of all sorts. This can explain pretty much all of his observations, and has been thoroughly documented by a lot of researchers. The responsiveness to near IR light isn't that special, either. Perhaps the cells are merely responding to the temperature, not the light, via detecting changes in enzyme kinematics. Furthermore, he makes the silly suggestion thar a response to light indicates information processing, when in reality it could simply be an on/off response to light/dark. Hell, even multicellular organisms have simple responses like that. All he's done is say "Whoa, cells don't move randomly! This must mean they can see like we do!" without considering other, much more likely, hypotheses. None of his "experiments" actually test his central hypothesis or properly control for other factors. He also falls into a common trap of medical folks - failure to acknowledge biodiversity. There *are* free-living protists with eyespots and definitive responses to light (Euglena is one). If response to light was part of all cells, why would Euglena need a specialized organelle, with specialized photoreceptors? And finally, he fails to explain where this light is even coming from. As I've noted before, it's very dark inside of most organisms. Is the light being generated somehow? He never addresses this issue. Given the *VAST* preponderance of work on how cells move via chemical signals, I cannot take this work seriously.

The tighter, the quicker it drops off, but it could take hours or days. However, this will not solve the issue. Instead, it will create a huge mass of necrotic tissue which will procede to allow infection and damaging decay byproducts into his bloodstream. I pretty much guarantee that using a rubber band will make things worse, not better. He'd be better off cutting his finger off and burning the stump closed.

The irony is that you cited material that proves YOU wrong. There is a long, long history of brain damage that results in loss of conscious thought, namely damage to the neocortex.

You claimed there was nothing random about life. Then predict mutations. The ugly fact is that, whatever goes on at quantum levels, the end result is random. Rolling a pair of dice is technically entirely within the realm of physics too. But even still, you have a 1/36 chance of rolling snake eyes, and you cannot predict it. Ergo, random. Bullshit. Google "patch-clamp electrode" and "ion channel". Enjoy catching up on the last 60 years of neurobiology, since you've evidently read NONE of it. Bullshit. Show me the paper. And your wild speculation, even if published, is irrelevant with EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE Your pub is about material properties of one cytoskeletal element, NOT about the function of nerve cells as a whole. Cite a damn source that actually supports your claims.

I was talking about the use of X-ray crystalography to determine protein structure, still a popular method, IIRC. First, whether they are "nano" or not is irrelevant - their *proper* name is "microtubule". Second, there is nothing magical about their growth. In fact, we understand it fully, and can induce it in vitro. In fact, there is an entire class of cancer drugs exclusively based around disruption of microtubule formation (they're used in mitosis), and a microtubule disruptor is used to induce polyploidy in plants. Finally, as CharonY pointed out, just because they're small tubes doesn't mean they have the same properties. Comparing a nanotube to a microtubule is like comparing a PVC pipe to a brick smokestack. That they're cylindrical is about as far as the comparison can go. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Irrelevant analogy. No, they cannot. I am a biomechanist by training and I can 100% guarantee you that you are wrong.

No, it isn't. If you claim life doesn't have random processes, you need to prove it. Offer evidence. Not equations, *experimental* evidence. That paper is purely hypothetical. I asked for Experimental Evidence. Show me a paper in which someone has actually done real experiments on actual neurons. Strawman. Nobody claimed it was. All currents in neurons are flows of ions, all voltages are ion imbalances across membranes. There are no 'sparks', just ion flows and gradients.

When was the last time you were able to predict every single aspect of an organism's behavior for it's entire lifespan? Oh, that's right, never. Both are mere math. Empirical evidence is what matters. Show me an actual nervous system displaying evidence of something more than just action potentials, membrane ion gradients, and synaptic transmission. Not in math - an *actual* experiment, on an *actual* animal with *actual* nerves. What does that have to do with this specific topic?

Banned. How's that for pwnage?

Not really.

Nothing. We're not talking about wires and circuits, we're talking about a soup of ions flowing in all sorts of directions with lots of random motion. What happens to salt water in an MRI? Nothing. Same for the brain. If you want to claim the brain operates in any sort of quantum way, anything more than a chemical soup, you'll need to cite empirical evidence.

All it turns up is protein crystal structures, which is really just a way of describing the 3-D structure of a protein. There are no "nano tubules"; you're thinking of microtubules. And I strongly doubt they're transmitting light, especially since it's pretty dark inside most animals.

Oh, we'd probably have assloads of digestive and kidney problems due to the high protein levels and low fiber, as you're correct that we're not built to be carnivores, but at least it would stave of malnutrition in a survival situation.

Does anyone even *need* a battleship anymore? I mean, what possible use do they serve in a modern war beyond a taxi service for ground troops and a platform for air forces?

Dissolved oxygen is higher at low altitudes because of higher atmospheric pressure, so you're right. However, rising oxygen levels would allow fish to explore more of the lake, including areas like the bottom which are nutrient rich but usually lower oxygen than the surface.

Actually, it's very possible to get everything you need from a single food source - I feed this to most of my pets. Whole, raw mammals. Basically, if the animal was healthy and had decent levels of nutrition, if you avoid cooking it (which destroys some vitamins), eat it right after death, and eat the whole thing (eyes, organs, skin, bones, everything), you'll get what you need. You'll probably also get about 6 different parasites and diseases, but at least you'll be completely nourished.