Area54

That's great. I'm just pointing out that if you retain your original argument then pedantic, confrontational, nit-picking perfectionists like me will ignore your central message. The choice and the freedom are yours.

A simple DuckDuckGo search <two nuclei in cell> returned this from wikipedia. Extract: Binucleated cells are cells that contain two nuclei. This type of cell is most commonly found in cancer cells and may arise from a variety of causes. Binucleation can be easily visualized through staining and microscopy. In general, binucleation has negative effects on cell viability and subsequent mitosis. They also occur physiologically in hepatocytes, chondrocytes and in fungi (dikaryon).

It's my impression that most scientists do not work as scientists, if by scientist one means a research scientist engaged in front line research. So I doubt your experience is that unusual. IF you are that unhappy, take the pay cut, but don't be surprised if it turns out to be equally disappointing. (Here's hoping someone comes in with a more uplifting and practical approach.)

The telomere is an integral part of the DNA. If its length changes then the physical DNA structure has changed. Why are you guessing what it is, when we know what it is? And here's a hint - it's not a "marking on the DNA during the upshift or downshift process of gene epxression". So yes, I think you are wrong, and I suspect you may know less about genetics than I do, which would be dire indeed. I agree that we may be able to use tehcniques to restore telomere length. I was not arguing against that. I was pointing out a fatal error in your argument. My recommendation is that you restate your argument, avoiding that fatal error. On the other hand, if your primary objective is to be ignored then I would suggest keeping it as it is.

The vast majority of people are familiar with the concept of a creator only through religion. Almost every reference to a creator is made in a religious context and so it is, again, natural that when creators are mentioned people will reference religion. That shouldn't be too difficult to understand. What makes you think this? Evidence? Reasoning? Revelation? Not at all odd for the reasons noted in my first comments. What makes you think such a restriction has been placed on you? All that is asked of you is that you acknowledge that the vast majority of people associate the concept of a creator with one or more religions. You are not expected to think this is a good approach, you simply need to recognise it as reality.

Well thank you for your reply, but you seem to have missed my point. My apologies for not being clear. You assert that when comparing the cells from an individual when they are 30 and when they are 50 that we will find "there is no changes to the cell's DNA". I have pointed out that the telomere length is different, therefore your statement is false. You cannot prove something using false statements.

That's our super-power.

Admirable goals @BahadirArici. Here are a couple of points that I think are impractical. You speak of internet democracy. If it were not for the efforts of the moderators and admins on this forum it would rapidly descend into a morasse of invective, backstabbing, name calling, threats and general chaos. How is this policed? By excluding people. Do you think the best way of running a democracy is to exclude people? Your comments on city states via nationalism are ill founded. Both create a sense of identity that takes advantage of our evolutionary past as tribal creatures. We identify with those who share similar views and experiences. Are you seriously telling me that a citizen of Newcastle would have trouble replacing her sense of being English with her pride in being a Geordie? On this point it is you who needs to think more deeply. You suggest gold as the currency because the dollar is under the control of some families. You might want to look into the history of George Soros and silver. It could cause you change your mind. Here is the key question: if we assume for the moment that all these proposals are sound, how would you go about implmenting them?

I'm not very well versed in genetics, but my understanding was that the cell's DNA changes on each instance of mitosis, with the length of the telomeres being reduced. Since this is thought to be intimately connected with aging, don't you think you are barking up the wrong DNA helix?

The OP prompts a number of disparate thoughts - observations and questions. In no particular order, here are the thoughts that have made it through to the posting stage! We don't yet have a universally globally agreed suite of human rights. This is partly because there is considerable debate over what exactly we mean by a human right and partly because of the impact that application of those rights have on existing power, political, economic and social structures and partly because humans have a right, which they often exercise, to be disruptive and disagreeable. Is it important that we achieve a better definition and acceptance of human rights, before seeking to extend them to other entities? Does the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provide an adequate basis? The previous issue arises, in part, because the concept of human rights is one that has evolved over time. Primitive societies and ancient civilisations doubtless had conventions, rules or laws that provided a measure of protection for what we would now perceive as rights, but it would have been rare for these to be applicable to all. That said, might we expect further evolution of our perception and understanding of rights? The success achieved by the LGBT community would be an example of that in action. The proposals of the OP are arguably another. Do we use recognition of this evolution to try to leapfrog close to an ultimate set of rights, if we feel such a set exists? Human rights are often described as being universal, in the sense that they are egalitarian, applying to everyone regardless of sex, ethnicity, nationality, religion, etc. This is obviously a simplification. If we consider the right to marry someone whose desire for marriage is mutual, we do not - in most cultures - extend this right to a pair of seven year olds. Such exceptions will often be self evident, or easily defined, but this willl not necessarily be the case when we are dealing with other entities. Some rights will be irrelevant to them, some may irrelevant to us, and some may be in conflict with "our" rights. How do we justly decide upon what rights these entities should have? (One hopes we would at least have the smarts to ask then what they think.) How do we deal with perceived conflict between their rights and ours? The notion of intelligent alien entities raises some worries in my mind. I fear our necessarily anthropocentric and geocentric world views will not have prepared us for how truly alien, alien might turn out to be. For one thing, and in the conventions of SF 'B' movies, many aliens may view the notion of of human rights as silly and meaningless as most of us view the invertebrate rights of echinoderms. How do we prepare ourselves to reconcile human rights with alien rights? There seems to widespread agreement among experts that at some point AI's (Whether conscious or not) will have an intelligence that significantly exceeds that of humans. If these AI are permitted to adopt corporate states, as the OP suggests, and compete with humans, then it seems to me humanity just signed the death warrant of the species. Do you agree? I strongly object to the elitism expressed in regard to other terrestrial species in the third category, Lone Intellectuals. This seems to me equivalent to only according human rights to the likes of Leonardo (da Vinci, not Caprio), Newton or Bach. Primates, cetaceans, African greys and possibly others deserve at least some set of rights intermediate between human and animal. Any takers?

Correction to Moontanman's assertion that most fossil fuels were produced in the Carboniferous era from rotting vegetation. Setting aside that if it rotted the carbon wouldn't be available, the Carboniferous produced a substantial part of the Earth's coal deposits, but oil was generated from marine deposits of plankton, primarily IIRC zooplankton. There are various sources for that oil, but most of them are post-Carboniferous. Natural gas (methane) is derived from coal, or in some cases decomposition of petroleum. On topic, @dstebbins , you have highligted an issue with popular science. It is rarely made clear enough that when scientists speak of life they are speaking of any form of life and more often than not very simple life forms, equivalent to prokaryotes. When they speak of complex life they are generally, at most, thinking in terms of sponges, or echinoderm like entities. And if they mention advanced life they might be referencing lizards, weasels, or politicians. Intelligent, "civilised" life will likely only be in the conversation if we are talking SETI.

I can assure you that any remarks I make about Trump will be ad hominems and with full justification. I cannot recall any negative character description of him that I have found inaccurate. Large military parades are associated with totalitarian regimes that aggrandize the leadership. The motivation here is transparent. I am embarrassed on behalf of the American people that they have a narcicistic, lying, incompetent meglomaniac in charge of their country and, were I religious, I would be praying on a daily basis to protect them till his time in office is over. One hopes the Separation of Powers will be sufficient to see them through.

Of course you are not. You are a liberal.

If we are talking bridges we have to include the three Forth bridges. (Will there ever be a fourth Forth?) Furthest is the iconic cantilevered rail bridge. Next the 1964 suspension road bridge whose construction I followed avidly via regular local TV News items. (It was for many years the longest suspension bridge in the world outside of the USA.) Closest is the newly opened Queensferry Crossing.

liaison embarrass. (Until I found it so embarrassing to get it wrong I made sure I knew it) rhythm Some years ago I was asked to show a senior VP a PowerPoint presentation I had delivered at a recent technical meeting. The title slide was something like "New Product Sucess". "You've misspelled success" he said immediately. Since attack is the best form of defence, I responded "I may not know how to spell it sir, but I do know how to achieve it! As you will see."

There is no need to get uppity. Your message was not previously clear. So, this really is my final point: we've known for decades what oil consumption was doing to the environment. Our contiinued commitment to an energy hungry lifestyle can no longer be blamed on Big Oil. It is accounted for by our own inherent selfishness. If it somehow ease your conscious to pretend it "wasn't your fault" then you are every bit as much a part of the problem as BIg Oil, arguably bigger. (But know I won't be troubling to make that argument.)

Where did you get this from? I'm not here to argue strawmen. If my position was poorly expressed then I am at a loss, since I've tried repeatedly to clarify it. 1. In what way was I acting in good faith? I have been conscious to a greater or lesser extent that my choices of consumption impacted upon the environment from at least my late teens. I have made no mention of "acting in good faith". I have reread each of my posts in this thread and nowhere do I see an implication that I "acted in good faith". 2. I largely ignored everything Big Oil said, since they were clearly biased. However you are correct in one thing. Big Oil and I were doing exactly the same thing: knowlingly injuring the enivornment through our actions. Is that OK? No, of course it isn't. But I and you and pretty much every person, posting here or lurking here (With, I hope, a couple of honourable exceptions) is screwing up the environment and rarely doing much more than lip service to correct it. The difference between you and I appears to be that I accept my guilt. You seem to want to transfer yours. @EdEarl Great that you are driving a hydrid. Even better that it is one you have kept operating for a decade and a half. However, you are still driving. So, yes, I shall continue to rail against you. Not nearly as strongly as I rail against myself, but evolution doesn't look so good when what you need is revolution.

And I specifically addressed this in my first post in the thread when I said: " No oil company I know forces me to put fuel in my car. While we may rightly question the efforts by oil companies to deny global warming and its probable cause, we can hardly blame them for our own addiction to energy consumption." I had nothing further to add. My point was made: hold the oil companies to account; don't ignore our own responsibility. All of my subsequent posts have been clarifications made necessary by posts addressing those comments, or my later replies. I'll repeat my first remark again, then leave the last word to others. " No oil company I know forces me to put fuel in my car. While we may rightly question the efforts by oil companies to deny global warming and its probable cause, we can hardly blame them for our own addiction to energy consumption."

Then we seem unable to agree. It is about me (And you, and everyone else.) My philosophy prohibits me from blaming others for those things for which I am responsible. That is fundamental for me. It is open to modification, but nothing said in this thread has even dented it's outer shell. And I have, at no point said or suggested that the oil companies should not also be held to account. Simply do not use them as an excuse for our own questionable behaviour. @Phi for All My response above addresses generically, if not specifically, those of your most recent reply to me.

For that to be true one has to make the unwarranted assumption that I lacked the education, intellect, curiosity and skepticism necessary to recognise the lies. And I confess, as a ten year old, I was impressed by the nature posters in the classroom supplied by Shell. However, as a ten year old, I never owned a car. By the time I did, I had matured somewhat. I understand your point, but I continue to rail against the righteous indignation of those consumers who ignore their own contribution to the problem. As Pogo said, "We have met the enenmy and he is us."

If I understand you correctly you are suggesting that the general public is the victim. If that is your position I call bullshit. I am responsible for my choices and if I choose to use the products of the oil industry, whether for running my car, heating my home, providing "convenient" plastics, then I share in responsibility for the consequences. This does not remove a share of the responsibility from the oil companies, but it is a position that is both more practical and ethical than playing the victim card. @Sensei The designers of the car did not force me. I am not a child, trapped in a world without freedom of choice. Neither are you. Don't ignore your responsibility.

No oil company I know forces me to put fuel in my car. While we may rightly question the efforts by oil companies to deny global warming and its probable cause, we can hardly blame them for our own addiction to energy consumption.

Natural disasters Sporting events Media action Celebrities Etc. All of which can surely be handled adequately within the current Lounge.

I'm curious as to what your 'logic' is based on. Would you care to expound? It might help explain your apparent difficulty with received theory.

I rather meant that you wouldn't want to advertise the fact that I agreed with you. It could damage your reputation.