Leaderboard

Hey guys, In the video above, at around 24:40, one of the doctors states: "If you eat an egg, roughly 50% of that will end up in your bloodstream..." Is this true? If not, should it be made illegal to misinform the public through YouTube? What are the latest scientific evidence suggesting regarding eggs raising blood cholesterol? Also, have done a quick google search and it says that eggs don't raise cholesterol but I suppose cholesterol could be taken up into the bloodstream without our cells taking it up ?? Thanks,

Don’t pretend I didn’t have to ask twice “Usually, though, the term ‘agency’ is used in a much narrower sense to denote the performance of intentional actions.” So agency requires intent. Why does there need to be intent for this to happen? Where is the “agency” in biological evolution?

! Moderator Note Sorry, non-starter since it immediately violates the rules against forcing anyone to watch something before participating in a discussion. You also don't support your ideas with more than Argument from Incredulity (Can't you see the slugs??!) and pattern similarity. If you can come at this a different way, you can re-post this in Speculations, but with this approach you're just going to end up with conspiracy as your final argument.

My understanding is that genetic drift is now a recognised mechanism in the evolution of organisms. Evolution simply means change over time, does it not? It is Darwinian evolution that relies on natural selection. That is just one kind of evolution, surely?

Thanks. +1

Just to correct some erroneous assumptions made above, the following quotation from Wikipedia entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eth is worth reading The distinction between voiced and unvoiced 'th' has never been made in English by its representation as 'th', thorn or eth. They are simply alternates for the same pair of sounds. It's a common misunderstanding. In principle, you can go through a Beowulf manuscript swapping all the thorns for eths and vice versa, and still claim with some justification that you'd not introduced any spelling mistakes. Whether the sound is voiced or unvoiced is governed by a) common contemporary usage (always) and b) the adjacent vowel sounds (usually). Not by its orthography.

Here this analogy has been developed somewhat further: This comes from:

The Bongo Song Author: Safri Duo Drum cover: El Estepario Siberiano Last 1.5 min are promotional material

There are people here better qualified than me to answer this but, to get the ball rolling, my understanding is that cholesterol in the diet is not particularly well absorbed by the body. A lot is esterified (cholesterol is an alcohol) and not absorbed. The body makes a lot of its own cholesterol. The main bad actors seem to be elements in the diet that elevate levels of low density lipoproteins. These are emulsified droplets with fatty (lipid) cores and water-soluble outer layers. The low density ones have a big core and a small outer layer, i.e. carry a lot of lipid per unit protein. The lipid cores can dissolve cholesterol and transport it around the body for tissue synthesis and so on. (There are also VLDLs, IDLs and HDLs as well, all with different ratios of fat to protein.) What I have read is that eggs in the diet (egg yolks, specifically, as those are where the cholesterol is found) are not a problem in moderation. It is chiefly eating saturated fat, leading to creation of an excess of low density lipoprotein particles in the blood, that is the problem. Actually, from what I read it is not clear to me that the cholesterol molecule itself is a problem at all! It seems to be the breakdown of these excess LDL particles - which contain a great deal besides cholesterol - that leads to arterial plaque. But perhaps someone more knowledgeable will swing by and clarify this.

I may have been a bit wordy in explaining my position. To simplify, lucid behavioral expression is largely dependent on the connection and exchanges between the neocortex and the thalamus. Between these two components the thalamus is more vital to our survival and brain function than the neocortex. The thalamus importance is suggested by how little cortical structure is required for behavioral expression and how nothing happens in the brain without thalamic function. Lucidity can occur with a severely degrade cortex because it is not as essential to that state as the thalamus' ability to rewire and adapt its function to limited cortical function. Behavioral efference (output) is coordinated through thalamic function; therefore, lucid behaviors are an output of thalamic function. To attenuate, refine, and focus its behavioral output, the thalamus relies on a healthy cortex throughout the life of a healthy individual. When there's degradation in the brain, this doesn't necessarily infer degradation of thalamic function. When we see moments of lucidity in AD patients this suggests that their thalamus has adapted new cortical connection to express that lucidity. Those connections may become tenuous as the AD cortex continues to degrade. Sporadic periods of lucidity suggest the tenuous nature of the neural connectivity between the cortex and thalamus in a deteriorating neural environment--like a damaged wire connecting a lamp to its power source.

Maine just followed Colorados lead. Their courts have ruled Trump ineligible under the 14th amendment

We all know that the Sun, the Earth, the Moon and the terrestrial waters are in motion. None is static. So static is the wrong word to use. We call what you mean by static theory the equilibrium theory and you are correct it was due to Newton, centuries ago. You are also correct that it is a very crude inadequate model, But is does correctly identify the forces involved as a combination of gravitational and rotational and that gravitational forces dominate the force part of the equation, but that rotational speeds dominate the timing part of the equation. A better theory, which also allows for the fact that the rotational axis of the Moon's orbit is not parallel to the Earth's own rotational axis and a few other effects is known as The dynamical theory of tides. But this is still based on Newton's force analysis. As I have shown your figure of 1600 km/hr is approcimately correct. But I have also shown that it does not correctly model the system as the timing of the moon's periodic function is not the same as the mechanical resonant frequencies of the water. Do you understand what this means ? The simplest method of approaching this is to model the hydrographic response as a fourier series rsonant with the lunar driving force, which introduces the humps you mention and use actual observations to calibrate the fourier coefficients to suit. A yet better mechanical model is to consider the lunar driving force as a 'Forcing Function' with a frequency near to the resonant to a non resonant system. Are you familiar with the maths of this ? It produces frequencies not in the oringinal lunar function nor the resonant response of the hydrographic system. So to echo swansont's words Why have you repeated your earlier posting ? What are you trying to achieve here ?

I’m sorry to hear you’re struggling. Maybe this summary from Axios gets to the heart of the matter more effectively than I have previously. My focus was primarily on that last point, but the surrounding context is also useful.

It is not a contradiction, it just isn't compatible with the Newtonian model of time and space. And at its heart, Relativity uses a completely different model for these. In Relativity these measurements are not absolute but frame dependent. An analogy would be these images of two lines: The same set of lines, just viewed from different perspectives. In the first image the red line is "taller" than the green, and in the bottom image the green line is "taller" than the red. The point being that in Relativity, time and space are measured more like the "height" of the lines in the images and not by their absolute length.

Please watch this video before joining in the discussion. Assuming you watched the video or you already know something about eukaryotic protists like slime molds, than the following photos should at the very least be a topic of discussion. This is a photograph taken from the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter on December 17, 2017. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/University of Arizona Now after seeing the video on top, do you believe there could be some argument that this could be an example of a cellular protist aggregation on a very large scale on the surface of Mars? If you look closely at the photograph you will be able to see evidence of the aggregation selecting its route across the Marian surface. The path shown obviously being the one selected by the aggregation. Here are some other examples, this one from December 3, 2006. This on June 25, 2021 Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/University of Arizona After studying many photos of Mars, I have come to the conclusion that these formations are a type of extraterrestrial protist in aggregation on the surface of Mars. The reason we do not recognize it immediately is because it is so different than life as we know it here on Earth. Well why shouldn’t it be, it is alien after all. Another thing that these “slugs” will do is form spore like fruiting bodies in order to reproduce. Perhaps on mars it might look something like this photo taken in January of 2010. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/University of Arizona I could literally show example after example of that would support this claim, which I will do and I’ll leave the discussion to you. Scientists are unable to explain why these “dunes” are so isolated from one another. This is not a natural formation. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/University of Arizona If you look closely at the last photograph, if you look closely at the run of the formation it is difficult to try to explain the natural processes that caused the rock to look like this. Here are some side-by-side comparisons of things that exist here on Earth and things that have been seen on Mars. Slime mold taken here on Earth. Photo of an unknown object on the surface of Mars. Here is a photo of familiar shapes etched into the surface of Mars with no explanation. This is a photograph of a formation from a slime mold on a much smaller scale.