Jun 4 2011: I think what you are speaking of is more of an interpretation than a theory in the truest sense of the word. There is another more modern interpretation where the most minute of particles can be at 2 places at the same time because time doesn't exist for things moving at the speed of light. I think this should be a familiar concept, that if you somehow went faster than the speed of light you would go back in time. so slower is in our direction, faster is in the opposite direction and at the speed of light is a sort of equilibrium of time.Therefore if you were right on the edge of the speed of light time would seem to stretch and therefore 2 particles aren't really in the same place at the same "time", they just seem that way to us because we are far left on this kind of "number line" representing the speed of light, and the experiences at these speeds.
May 12 2011: It's clean. It is already relatively safe, but they will make it better. It is the future, especially after the carbon tax is in full swing.
May 12 2011: Austin's point should be sufficient, but I will add another point, at least as I this issue in North American society.
Women defer to men out of their own accord. They do it all the time. How is that the fault of men that women choose to submit over and over again? If you want a higher paying job, assert yourself, if you want a to get paid like men do, assert yourself and demand it.
Sexism is overrated.
As far as the jokes go...
We find it funny because of all of us are interested in sex. I think you'll find that that the people who are making the most jokes in this regard are sexually insecure. And this is not some "they make fun of you but THEY are lame", catty and childish comment, it's the truth.
May 10 2011: is it possible they understand that God selected the Evolution among other possible ways of creation for creating species?
I'll tell you S.R., I usually like to say that there is no conflict, but usually because religious people need to hear that to at least consider the reality of the situation.
I'll save that here, it is clear that evolution and the monotheistic religions are surely in conflict with one another, your religion asserts the idea that man is some how special. This by any scientific standard is of course not true whether you consider the sheer vastness of the universe in cosmology or the fact that we can genetically engineer bacteria to produce human insulin.
Here is the real conflict for most scientists and religion ( at least the traditional religions with personal god type myths). When you are a scientist you are constantly asking questions and questioning authority. The very motto of the Royal Society was " Take nobody's word for it".
In fact on page 320 of Isaac Newton's "The Principia:Mathematical Principals Of Natural Philosophy" , On the fist page of book three he puts forth 4 Rules for reasoning.
Rule 1 states
"We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearance"
The majority of scientists and especially the good ones tend to be atheistic because they are looking at the evidence objectively.
If a scientist wrote in a publication that let's say String Theory was fact because he "felt" it, that HE knew it because a magic man speaks to him. That this Magic man is behind all things.
What do you think the readers of the article would think?
It is a matter of mindset, some people are easier to believe in things, especially if they are raised that way. And others insistently ask questions. It is clear that the scientist absolutely MUST be the latter.
May 1 2011: I'm not sure what level of detail you want here or if you know what sickle cell actually is so I will try to describe this in some basic fashion.
Sickle cell disease is caused by a mutation that affects one part of the protein complex that makes up hemoglobin. Specifically we are interested in Hemoglobin S,C,E and a- and B-thalassemia as well as a couple of other protein mutations related to blood.
Sickle cell causes clots during states of oxygen deprivation, and people with sickle cell are then vulnerable to kidney failure.
So how does this adaption both survive long enough to cause an almost immunity to malaria and yet at the same time kill the host?
I am hoping you are familiar with the differences between recessive and dominant alleles.
People who have one gene for Hemoglobin S etc. and one for say A, neither die from the recessive disorder or malaria because they are effectively able to produce both the "anti-malaria" Hemoglobin S and the normal A. Therefore they can fend of the malaria and yet are not overwhelmed with the Hemoglobin S, which cannot sufficiently carry oxygen throughout the body.
Since the sickle cell gene is heritable we can bet that it is a germ-cell mutation, meaning a mutation of the sex cells that lead to embryo formation. Interestingly enough you'll find quite a bit of mutations of the germ cells, the thing is mutated sperm usually are not the fastest swimmers.
So here we are again with the caterpillar. One person was born with a recessive gene for sickle cell and maybe it was dormant for them but eventually over long periods of time two people with the recessive gene had kids and that kid may have died of sickle cell. BUT since Afrika and SE Asia are so malaria ridden, people with only one gene, or a recessive gene were somewhat immune to the disease, and therefore had a greater chance of surviving long enough to procreate, and therefore the gene doesn't die out.
So you are left with a bad thing that does a good thing.
Apr 30 2011: Debra,
The caterpillar adapted eyes in this way...
At some time a caterpillar had little blotch pattern on its coat. This made the bird slightly less inclined to attack it, because of fear, after all why risk it for that caterpillar when other non-threatening caterpillars are everywhere. Then that caterpillar had offspring which may or may not have had the blotch, if they did maybe the blotch looked slightly more like an eye maybe it didn't, but eventually throughout the generations the caterpillars with the "eye blotch" were less and less likely to be eaten because the birds were afraid of them, therefore they more than the others who did not have the "eye blotch", survived long enough to procreate. The caterpillars without the "eye blotch" were then more likely to be eaten because if the bird is afraid of the "eye blotch" those "eye blotch" caterpillars have been taken off of the menu for the bird. Kind of like if I had 5 burgers 2 without and 3 with mustard, but you didn't like mustard, you would then be more likely to eat the 2 without.Insects procreate rather quickly and so you could see how incremental steps could get you from not having the "eye blotch" to having one that looks pretty precise, even though in the beginning it was just a blotch.
I hope this isn't too confusing
If you would like me to explain how the Sickle-cell adaption works I will in another post.
Error and adaption are relative terms, if the mutation is beneficial we call it an adaption, if is not we call it an error but in essence all mutations are "errors."
I think the intuition for this might be difficult because it is hard to strip the entire process of any purpose.
Apr 30 2011: DNA is a molecule and therefore subject to chemical reactions. Hydrogen Bonds, bond nucleotide chains together and therefore DNA structure is very susceptible to radicals(cation, and anionic compounds, polyatomic ions).
It is pure physical law.
Say I hold a stone over an open well. When I let go of the stone it will fall to the bottom of the well. We do not claim that the stone or the well are sentient, this is merely the effect of gravity on the stone.
This is the same as with dipole-dipole interactions. Full charges from radicals overwhelm partial charges in the hydrogen bonds. I could get into a whole thing about acids and alkali's here but I don't think it is necessary.
Apr 30 2011: And if it wasn't "an error" it would be perfect(i.e. no mutations).
I don't think there is a proven theory per se, that there is isn't something in DNA that wants to mutate(failure to copy) I think that it is really just assumed because so many(the vast majority of) mutations are non-beneficial.
You could get into a whole pHiliZoPHiGal argument about how the DNA might somehow "know" or "want" to mutate as to "consciously" build towards evolution but that argument won't go anywhere.
... But hey you have the Masters I'm just a lowly undergraduate ;)
TEDCred score: +3.00 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A comment on Conversation: Refuting a quantum mechanics theory
A comment on Conversation: Nuclear Energy: Given what has happened in history and the current energy crisis, does it have a future?
A comment on Conversation: Why is it racism is put on a higher pedestal for hatred than sexism?
Women defer to men out of their own accord. They do it all the time. How is that the fault of men that women choose to submit over and over again? If you want a higher paying job, assert yourself, if you want a to get paid like men do, assert yourself and demand it.
Sexism is overrated.
As far as the jokes go...
We find it funny because of all of us are interested in sex. I think you'll find that that the people who are making the most jokes in this regard are sexually insecure. And this is not some "they make fun of you but THEY are lame", catty and childish comment, it's the truth.
A comment on Conversation: Extinction of human being in past history of earth and Evolution theory
I'll tell you S.R., I usually like to say that there is no conflict, but usually because religious people need to hear that to at least consider the reality of the situation.
I'll save that here, it is clear that evolution and the monotheistic religions are surely in conflict with one another, your religion asserts the idea that man is some how special. This by any scientific standard is of course not true whether you consider the sheer vastness of the universe in cosmology or the fact that we can genetically engineer bacteria to produce human insulin.
Here is the real conflict for most scientists and religion ( at least the traditional religions with personal god type myths). When you are a scientist you are constantly asking questions and questioning authority. The very motto of the Royal Society was " Take nobody's word for it".
In fact on page 320 of Isaac Newton's "The Principia:Mathematical Principals Of Natural Philosophy" , On the fist page of book three he puts forth 4 Rules for reasoning.
Rule 1 states
"We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearance"
The majority of scientists and especially the good ones tend to be atheistic because they are looking at the evidence objectively.
If a scientist wrote in a publication that let's say String Theory was fact because he "felt" it, that HE knew it because a magic man speaks to him. That this Magic man is behind all things.
What do you think the readers of the article would think?
It is a matter of mindset, some people are easier to believe in things, especially if they are raised that way. And others insistently ask questions. It is clear that the scientist absolutely MUST be the latter.
A reply on Conversation: Who are you? Defined by your genetics and created by your human experience
A reply on Conversation: Are we sure that DNA is making errors?
Get a textbook!(LOL)
Or go to this quick article that is exactly what you are looking for.
http://sickle.bwh.harvard.edu/malaria_sickle.html
Just get over your natural inclination to look for intention in the process and it will make clear sense.
A reply on Conversation: Are we sure that DNA is making errors?
Sickle cell disease is caused by a mutation that affects one part of the protein complex that makes up hemoglobin. Specifically we are interested in Hemoglobin S,C,E and a- and B-thalassemia as well as a couple of other protein mutations related to blood.
Sickle cell causes clots during states of oxygen deprivation, and people with sickle cell are then vulnerable to kidney failure.
So how does this adaption both survive long enough to cause an almost immunity to malaria and yet at the same time kill the host?
I am hoping you are familiar with the differences between recessive and dominant alleles.
People who have one gene for Hemoglobin S etc. and one for say A, neither die from the recessive disorder or malaria because they are effectively able to produce both the "anti-malaria" Hemoglobin S and the normal A. Therefore they can fend of the malaria and yet are not overwhelmed with the Hemoglobin S, which cannot sufficiently carry oxygen throughout the body.
Since the sickle cell gene is heritable we can bet that it is a germ-cell mutation, meaning a mutation of the sex cells that lead to embryo formation. Interestingly enough you'll find quite a bit of mutations of the germ cells, the thing is mutated sperm usually are not the fastest swimmers.
So here we are again with the caterpillar. One person was born with a recessive gene for sickle cell and maybe it was dormant for them but eventually over long periods of time two people with the recessive gene had kids and that kid may have died of sickle cell. BUT since Afrika and SE Asia are so malaria ridden, people with only one gene, or a recessive gene were somewhat immune to the disease, and therefore had a greater chance of surviving long enough to procreate, and therefore the gene doesn't die out.
So you are left with a bad thing that does a good thing.
A reply on Conversation: Are we sure that DNA is making errors?
The caterpillar adapted eyes in this way...
At some time a caterpillar had little blotch pattern on its coat. This made the bird slightly less inclined to attack it, because of fear, after all why risk it for that caterpillar when other non-threatening caterpillars are everywhere. Then that caterpillar had offspring which may or may not have had the blotch, if they did maybe the blotch looked slightly more like an eye maybe it didn't, but eventually throughout the generations the caterpillars with the "eye blotch" were less and less likely to be eaten because the birds were afraid of them, therefore they more than the others who did not have the "eye blotch", survived long enough to procreate. The caterpillars without the "eye blotch" were then more likely to be eaten because if the bird is afraid of the "eye blotch" those "eye blotch" caterpillars have been taken off of the menu for the bird. Kind of like if I had 5 burgers 2 without and 3 with mustard, but you didn't like mustard, you would then be more likely to eat the 2 without.Insects procreate rather quickly and so you could see how incremental steps could get you from not having the "eye blotch" to having one that looks pretty precise, even though in the beginning it was just a blotch.
I hope this isn't too confusing
If you would like me to explain how the Sickle-cell adaption works I will in another post.
Error and adaption are relative terms, if the mutation is beneficial we call it an adaption, if is not we call it an error but in essence all mutations are "errors."
I think the intuition for this might be difficult because it is hard to strip the entire process of any purpose.
A reply on Conversation: Are we sure that DNA is making errors?
It is pure physical law.
Say I hold a stone over an open well. When I let go of the stone it will fall to the bottom of the well. We do not claim that the stone or the well are sentient, this is merely the effect of gravity on the stone.
This is the same as with dipole-dipole interactions. Full charges from radicals overwhelm partial charges in the hydrogen bonds. I could get into a whole thing about acids and alkali's here but I don't think it is necessary.
A reply on Conversation: Are we sure that DNA is making errors?
I don't think there is a proven theory per se, that there is isn't something in DNA that wants to mutate(failure to copy) I think that it is really just assumed because so many(the vast majority of) mutations are non-beneficial.
You could get into a whole pHiliZoPHiGal argument about how the DNA might somehow "know" or "want" to mutate as to "consciously" build towards evolution but that argument won't go anywhere.
... But hey you have the Masters I'm just a lowly undergraduate ;)