television broadcasts, microwave ovens, mobile phones, wireless LAN, Bluetooth, GPS and Two-Way Radios such as FRS and GMRS Radios. So I mean all of these can be randomly (or on purpose) interacting with the fluid inside your cochlea to make you hear things that aren't there throughout the day. Most of it probably gets filtered out as noise, but theres gotta be a couple of times each year each of us hears something that wasn't there due to this stuff. I still say its worth it, but damn thats weird.
Otherwise, what you're talking about is more or less making the entire ocean, or at least your entire puddle, be the inside of a living system. That's just not plausible.
I agree with that. The thing is though, there are plenty of ways for isolated environments to arise without necessarily having something like a lipid based membrane, ie within rock or ice where there can be small crevices, holes, whatever you want to call it. The advantage to many solids like this functionally acting as membranes is that the surface can also act as a substrate to which whatever precursor molecules youre talking about will be excluded upon formation of the solid and then can absorb to the surface of its pocket thus increasing the local concentration (possibly correct orientation for chain-forming) to an even greater extent. I'm not sure about lipid bilayers acting as catalysts in this way, but I've never heard of it and a quick internet search didn't turn anything up, while we've all heard of using charged solid surfaces as catalysts. In this way formation of large organic molecules can be both energetically and entropically favorable
Also, when discussing the stability of molecules, what you said was true.. for life now. Metastability is an advantage now only because things have gotten so complex that a dynamic system is able to outcompete more stable ones. This wouldn't necessarily be true if there was no other genetic competition for resources, at that point stability could(would?) be a plus.
I guess the final thing to consider is whether it is easier for a membrane to form around an already present genetic molecule, or vice versa. Perhaps early genetic material was lipid soluble, and rather than membranes it was separated from its environment by being dissolved in pockets of emulsified hydrocarbons rather than in water surrounded by a membrane, since I'm not sure how common it is for membranes to spontaneously form and you seem to like the membrane first theory I'll hope you know the answer to that.
So basically two factors need to be understood 1)How easy/common is it for membranes to form spontaneously, and 2)Are there examples of membranes acting as a catalyzing substrate. Without the answers to those two questions we cant tell which theory is more plausible.
Really? I mean so I can't even keep a copy for myself and give it to people who might be interested, or just put them all up on a webpage and then link to the journal abstract to prove it was published? That seems ridiculous that its like selling your ideas to the journal.
Well I have more to say, but just to see if you're checking this i have one question but first of all: in summary of what I was proposing 1)Some chain like molecule formed somewhere that attracted precursors molecules that would form a complementary chain 2)Once this happened this molecule would become more and more prevalent as it copied itself (with some errors of course)3)Versions of the original replicating molecule that could self catalyze whatever needed to happen during the replication process could have arisen, at which point that molecule would be selected for 4)eventually we end up with what we have now
Anyway, I think thats a pretty good theory, despite the factors that make it unlikely (can be overcome with sheer numbers and length of time involved) so what do you propose instead?
Well both protiens and nucleic acid chains are able to fold in such a way that they catalyze reactions involving another part of the same molecule (autocataclytic activity). I beleive (but am too lazy to look it up) that examples have even been foudn of both types of chaines catalyzing their own replication. Of course the system the modern cell uses is much mroe accurate and stable, but the original life-like things that were copying themselves could have been doing it simply as a result of thier own chemical nature in thier particular environment. It is not unheard of.
Also the formation of long chains does not necessarily require enzymatic activity, if the correct conditions are present (probably cold, high concentrations of precursors, maybe an electrically charged surface on which the precursors would collect) these larger molecules could form, and once one randomly ends up having this wierd ability to copy itself, it starts spreading and its "offspring" start taking up more and more of the precursors and, due to small differences in how they were copied, begin "competing" with each other.
Third thing is that you do not need plentiful products at first, only stable ones that can survive until enough precursors come around for a copy to be made.
The membrane-first hypothesis is alright but what you said about self-replicating molecules isn't relly thinking it through. If a large RNA molecule (for example, could have been a protien or DNA, perhaps something else)is able to form, there must have been a high concentration of the building blocks around to begin with. Hence, wherever it formed would be a place conducive to large molecules and if one happened to be self-replicating, it would do so.(see the article awhile back about ice as a substrate for RNA replication and forming small pockets with alot of stuff dissolved in liquid water (freezing point depression, its why people dump salt on the street when it snows).
I really don't understand why this is so modded up, while I agree with the general argument its really been simplified. The chemical makeup of life on earth doesn't just seem to be a random occurrence; Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen and Oxygen, (prevalent throughout the universe) are found in the form of hydrocarbons, water, ammonia,etc (all really stable ways for those elements to combine)really is the simplest way that life as complex as we know it could have formed. I'm not saying that it can't happen elsewhere under different conditions, but really just go look at wikipedia for a rundown on why carbon backbones and water are special. People don't think life would be similar to us just based on some earth centric view. Beyond at the most basic level I mentioned above compartmentalization and breaking of bonds giving off heat are two more things common to life.
Could end up being that we are rare, cause the rest of the life forms in the universe are electrical reactions, or magnetic, or nuclear
and I don't even know where to begin with that statement. I mean yea I guess there could be magnetic/nuclear reaction based life (chemical is electrical, actually magnetic at some level too), and we'd have trouble imagining it, but everything known about the fundamental laws of nature say that it would be more difficult for something complex to arise out of the conditions necessary for a nuclear reaction, for example. (High temperature lead to a high level of entropy)
I'm not sure whether you read the actual article or where you got that last quote from but it specifically says they aren't using "adult" cells. Unless by adult you mean differentiated, but most cell populations in a newborn will still differ from cells taken from a mature adult in many ways, so thats a confusing way to put it.
Where does it say anything about the activity of the cells after they are implanted in an organism? As far as I can tell without paying anything they just figured out which transcription factors need to be expressed and in what order and for how long in order for a cell to be in a pluripotent state, a series of signaling factors trigger that gene expression, and developed a way to tell whether the cells are pluripotent or not. Nothing about what your talking about...
Well if I had a house and could afford it it would be worth it to me to power everything with solar/wind power just to be self-reliant rather than depending on some massive government/corporation-controlled infrastructure, and as far as I can tell I'm not even that cynical about that stuff. I haven't looked into the lifespan of solar panels or anything yet though so maybe it wouldn't end up being worthwhile.
Well you wouldn't get that advantage if you were using the energy to power an ipod like the article suggests. But yea that would probably be a more useful application, of course at the same time then everyone is getting even less exercise so it would be bad on a different level (if someones wearing it who is unhealthy due to lack of exercise).
I don't get it, why are you a professional artist if its hard to make money doing it? Like I said in another post I cant come up with many artists (of any type) who's quality of work increased greatly after they first became big time (when they were obviously doing something else to make a living while creating the work of art). Good artists will make cool stuff whether they can make a living off it or not because they enjoy doing it, making some money is just a bonus.
What I was thinking is that maybe its some sort of Far UV phosphorescent effect. Some molecule in the suit material is absorbing UV radiation from the sun and then slowly re-emitting UV photons into the oxygenated air in the ISS as it returns to its stable state. I'm not sure what the suits are made out of or anything though so have no way to check. Also I'd think you would need something like a heavy metal complexed with some organic molecule, probably in solution, which sounds like pretty crazy stuff for space suit material, but they have to absorb the UV rays before getting to the astronauts somehow, so maybe. Interesting stuff, hopefully someone who knows will answer this.
It's an operational definition referring to the relationship between the relative pressures of a system and its surroundings (usually atmospheric pressure). Never heard of negative volume.
Slashdot Mirror
television broadcasts, microwave ovens, mobile phones, wireless LAN, Bluetooth, GPS and Two-Way Radios such as FRS and GMRS Radios. So I mean all of these can be randomly (or on purpose) interacting with the fluid inside your cochlea to make you hear things that aren't there throughout the day. Most of it probably gets filtered out as noise, but theres gotta be a couple of times each year each of us hears something that wasn't there due to this stuff. I still say its worth it, but damn thats weird.
The older generation has allowed things to go to shit, its up to us to change it!...shit I don't want to have to deal with that.
I agree with that. The thing is though, there are plenty of ways for isolated environments to arise without necessarily having something like a lipid based membrane, ie within rock or ice where there can be small crevices, holes, whatever you want to call it. The advantage to many solids like this functionally acting as membranes is that the surface can also act as a substrate to which whatever precursor molecules youre talking about will be excluded upon formation of the solid and then can absorb to the surface of its pocket thus increasing the local concentration (possibly correct orientation for chain-forming) to an even greater extent. I'm not sure about lipid bilayers acting as catalysts in this way, but I've never heard of it and a quick internet search didn't turn anything up, while we've all heard of using charged solid surfaces as catalysts. In this way formation of large organic molecules can be both energetically and entropically favorable
Also, when discussing the stability of molecules, what you said was true.. for life now. Metastability is an advantage now only because things have gotten so complex that a dynamic system is able to outcompete more stable ones. This wouldn't necessarily be true if there was no other genetic competition for resources, at that point stability could(would?) be a plus.
I guess the final thing to consider is whether it is easier for a membrane to form around an already present genetic molecule, or vice versa. Perhaps early genetic material was lipid soluble, and rather than membranes it was separated from its environment by being dissolved in pockets of emulsified hydrocarbons rather than in water surrounded by a membrane, since I'm not sure how common it is for membranes to spontaneously form and you seem to like the membrane first theory I'll hope you know the answer to that.
So basically two factors need to be understood 1)How easy/common is it for membranes to form spontaneously, and 2)Are there examples of membranes acting as a catalyzing substrate. Without the answers to those two questions we cant tell which theory is more plausible.
Yea I meant put up the full text on a site somewhere but link to the official abstract so they could cite that.
Really? I mean so I can't even keep a copy for myself and give it to people who might be interested, or just put them all up on a webpage and then link to the journal abstract to prove it was published? That seems ridiculous that its like selling your ideas to the journal.
So if a journal publishes your work your not allowed to share it elsewhere?
Well I have more to say, but just to see if you're checking this i have one question but first of all: in summary of what I was proposing 1)Some chain like molecule formed somewhere that attracted precursors molecules that would form a complementary chain 2)Once this happened this molecule would become more and more prevalent as it copied itself (with some errors of course)3)Versions of the original replicating molecule that could self catalyze whatever needed to happen during the replication process could have arisen, at which point that molecule would be selected for 4)eventually we end up with what we have now
Anyway, I think thats a pretty good theory, despite the factors that make it unlikely (can be overcome with sheer numbers and length of time involved) so what do you propose instead?
Also the formation of long chains does not necessarily require enzymatic activity, if the correct conditions are present (probably cold, high concentrations of precursors, maybe an electrically charged surface on which the precursors would collect) these larger molecules could form, and once one randomly ends up having this wierd ability to copy itself, it starts spreading and its "offspring" start taking up more and more of the precursors and, due to small differences in how they were copied, begin "competing" with each other.
Third thing is that you do not need plentiful products at first, only stable ones that can survive until enough precursors come around for a copy to be made.
CNO cycle
Carbon-based life
water
The membrane-first hypothesis is alright but what you said about self-replicating molecules isn't relly thinking it through. If a large RNA molecule (for example, could have been a protien or DNA, perhaps something else)is able to form, there must have been a high concentration of the building blocks around to begin with. Hence, wherever it formed would be a place conducive to large molecules and if one happened to be self-replicating, it would do so.(see the article awhile back about ice as a substrate for RNA replication and forming small pockets with alot of stuff dissolved in liquid water (freezing point depression, its why people dump salt on the street when it snows).
your food was covered in it too
plus why are people less retarded for not believing extraterrestrial life is out there somewhere if they're religious. That was an odd one.
it wanted money, $28.88 or some weird price i remember
shoot you up with iPS cells
It just wasn't in the summary is all.
I'm not sure whether you read the actual article or where you got that last quote from but it specifically says they aren't using "adult" cells. Unless by adult you mean differentiated, but most cell populations in a newborn will still differ from cells taken from a mature adult in many ways, so thats a confusing way to put it.
Where does it say anything about the activity of the cells after they are implanted in an organism? As far as I can tell without paying anything they just figured out which transcription factors need to be expressed and in what order and for how long in order for a cell to be in a pluripotent state, a series of signaling factors trigger that gene expression, and developed a way to tell whether the cells are pluripotent or not. Nothing about what your talking about...
Well if I had a house and could afford it it would be worth it to me to power everything with solar/wind power just to be self-reliant rather than depending on some massive government/corporation-controlled infrastructure, and as far as I can tell I'm not even that cynical about that stuff. I haven't looked into the lifespan of solar panels or anything yet though so maybe it wouldn't end up being worthwhile.
Well you wouldn't get that advantage if you were using the energy to power an ipod like the article suggests. But yea that would probably be a more useful application, of course at the same time then everyone is getting even less exercise so it would be bad on a different level (if someones wearing it who is unhealthy due to lack of exercise).
I don't get it, why are you a professional artist if its hard to make money doing it? Like I said in another post I cant come up with many artists (of any type) who's quality of work increased greatly after they first became big time (when they were obviously doing something else to make a living while creating the work of art). Good artists will make cool stuff whether they can make a living off it or not because they enjoy doing it, making some money is just a bonus.
What did I do?
What I was thinking is that maybe its some sort of Far UV phosphorescent effect. Some molecule in the suit material is absorbing UV radiation from the sun and then slowly re-emitting UV photons into the oxygenated air in the ISS as it returns to its stable state. I'm not sure what the suits are made out of or anything though so have no way to check. Also I'd think you would need something like a heavy metal complexed with some organic molecule, probably in solution, which sounds like pretty crazy stuff for space suit material, but they have to absorb the UV rays before getting to the astronauts somehow, so maybe. Interesting stuff, hopefully someone who knows will answer this.
It's an operational definition referring to the relationship between the relative pressures of a system and its surroundings (usually atmospheric pressure). Never heard of negative volume.
Depends on who it happens to...