mrburns2012

Cool video! Evolution couldn't have possibly foreseen that coming Here's an old but good one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zS9atz-pRns

No force, unless there's friction and/or there's an incline.

For Progeria, let's say there's a way to induce a mutation to the gene encoding Lamin A which not only restores the structural integrity of the nucleus, but enhances it to the point that nothing can break it down. How does that help solve problems related to shortening telomeres and other aging factors?

Thanks for the clarification.

The source of immortalized cell lines are cancer cells, like HeLa cells dervived from a woman with cervical cancer. Anyway, if you look at our recent past, we've actually been able to extend our lives quite a bit via medical advances. But such a feat comes with a cost. For instance, we are now seeing an unprecedented rise in cases for heart disease and cancer not known to our ancestors. Whether it's better die or live as a vegetable is up for debate. Also, you should look at the different theories on the causes of aging, like the DNA damage theory already published out there. It's thought that each has its own merit, so it's reasonable to think that immortality cannot be achieved until all of the potential causes of aging are addressed.

Yes it's possible and evident in different cancers.

You may be pleased to know there are organized groups of people dedicated to finding a solution to this question Even BBC has a documentary exploring this very question. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/broadband/tx/perfectmurder/highlights/

You've provided a good summary: - Every living organism has essential genes. - Every living organism has lots of redundant genes. - Essential genes cannot be removed without changing the phenotype. - Redundant genes can be removed and do not change phenotype whatsoever. The question is: are there's enough data in his paper (references and all) to support all (or any) of those conclusions? The answer is no. The section "Molecular switches" sounds bogus to me. He basically claims that redundant genes KO mice show no observable phenotype throughout the paper. But when there are some, he shrugs his shoulders and pretty much says, "Well, they didn't die. That's good enough."

None, if not necessary. I don't know about the Three Books of Terror, and there's no alien race on Earth. But I can choose from only two of the choices, neither of which are valid. That's called a "false dilemma." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy) That's not very different from the way creationists think. For example, they might ask: are humans monkeys, or have God molded them out of bubble gum? You see, the fact that humans are not monkeys does not suggest that humans are made out of bubble gum.

1. I'm not convinced that you are concerned about the paper's content at all, so I'm not going into it. 2. It is be too easy and useless to make arguments based solely on opinion as everyone's got one. Even Credo Mutwa. 3. "The guy is and EXPERT and he tells you what he OBSERVES." So are we. 4. I do believe that his references are credible and real. But cherry picking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking) is not good science.

Sione, The article is being published in the "Journal of Creation," not, "Journal of Zorba the Hutt." Courtesy of Jorba the Hutt and... The paper's references and credentials mean nothing if the author can't make a good argument.

I read the article, and I thought it was an interesting read. The author seems educated; though he may be in denial, he isn't dumb. The meat of the article is basically this: because duplicated versions of genes exist, there must be some sort of natural selection to prevent them from disappearing/diverging. Yet when these same genes are knocked out on animal models, no phenotypic changes are observed (which isn't true). From these observations, the author concludes that the theory of natural selection is wrong, because natural selection isn't supposed to sustain nonfunctional genes. With that said, his arguments are weak because he was cherry picking his data.

I personally have some level of tinnitus. But like other common conditions e.g. nearsightedness, I don't think everyone suffers from it. Anyway, I've heard that chronic exposure to loud sound can damage the ear's "hair cells," specialized ear cells that sense vibrations, amplify and convert them to electrical signals for the brain. That somehow results in tinnitus. (There are some theories out there, but I don't know them.) But the ear is so tiny and complex (anatomy: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/imagepages/1092.htm) that abnormalities in any part of the ear like hair cells, nerves, or even the part of your brain that interprets sound may potentially induce the phantom noise. A lot of times, tinnitus is harmless. Sometimes, it's not. Go see your doctor if you want to make sure it's not a symptom of some serious underlying issue especially if you're also experiencing additional symptoms or have a family history of some illness.

The condition you're describing sounds like tinnitus which is a relatively common symptom of a number of underlying causes (ear wax, etc...). http://www.earinfosite.org/tinnitus.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinnitus

Good point I must've been under some unknown herbal influence.

Well, that would depend on whether or not I'm inherently crazy or seriously misguided in someway, wouldn't it? The difference between me and a bunch of religious nuts is that their craziness and misguidance may be amplified via the massive number of followers. The world is safe, at least from me.

I believe in science. But I also believe in some essence of a god. Not the kind of god that charges monthly payments for miracles, has a beer belly, a beard, or named Tom Cruise. But the kind of god whose image can change under different circumstances convenient for my worldly view.

I disagree. Nothing is an absence of thing. You can't perceive nothing. If something is perceived, it becomes something you've perceived. Branes, ghosts and god are something. They're branes, ghosts, and god . Ideas are not nothing. They're ideas.

How did you come up with that connection? And if that's the case, how do you account for the other 3 dimensions? Anyway, I believe that the future is predetermined in a different sense, ie. if there's a supreme being (like a god) that can observe and measure all possible events in the universe (or beyond), from the quantum world to macro-world without affecting them, he might be able to predict the future. (I may have heard the idea from somewhere, so it's not original.) But in a more practical sense, I don't care whether or not the future is predeterministic as long as it is I who determine when (time) and where (place) I choose to do anything in the eyes of a human observer albeit some influence from my boss, family, etc...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro/DESKTOP "Pro/DESKTOP is no longer available for download or activation." You probably won't find it legally anymore.

First off, I'm no physician so I can't offer you advice. Secondly, diagnosing health conditions online is like doing surgery without lights. Although it could be useful, it's unreliable and may be dangerous to you... but I think you probably know this already. Nevertheless, I'm still interested in hearing what your doctor might say.

WARNING: SOME PICTURES MAY BE GRAPHIC Ok, I'm feeling generous, so let wish come true for today. Here, I give you... new eyes: http://dev.biologists.org/cgi/content/full/130/13/2939/FIG5 If you're confused, here's what you are seeing. Those are photos of mutant fruit flies. All the reddish structures are eyes. For example, in box E, eyes can be found at the base of the antennae, wings and on multiple places on the legs. Ok, I will admit. Those are just eyes. They're not the same as limbs. How about animals with extra limbs? Wait, animals aren't the same as humans How about humans with new limbs? http://news.sky.com/sky-news/content/StaticFile/jpg/2007/Nov/Week1/1607737.jpg Do you watch or read the news? I'm not so convinced, but here it is anyway: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22274113/ Now, do you want proofs human can spontaneously grow a radio? If history has taught you anything so far, you know I can find it.

I see you're eager to learn something new, so here are some pictures: Mutation makes wings: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol287/issue5461/images/medium/covermed.gif (Here's a picture of a normal fruit fly (2 wings)) http://genesdev.cshlp.org/content/12/10/1474/F1.large.jpg (Here's a picture of a fruit fly when mutations occur (box F, 4 wings)) and junk: Polydactyly (human, x-ray): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Polydactyly_01_Rhand_AP.jpg If you don't like how scientists explain it, you are welcome to come up with a theory of your own. It'll be your job to convince us why you are right.

Good job. The only square I knew of when I was nine, was a shape with 4 equal sides. ha, that almost rhymed.