Dagl1

I would bet a whole Japanese yen that he has it saved somewhere, however I think that it doesn't really answer my (our) question; why is this allowed. There is soo much bullshit (sorry, I am all for out of the box thinking but most of the time its just BS) in the speculations section....

I supppose his and in part my question would be, why doesn't it seem enforced. I have only been lurking on SFN for a little bit, but I have seen so many ... "alternative ideas" without a lot of evidence (surprisingly, it only is regarding physics, never any other field, any idea why? (personally I think it is because physics still has the most freedom with some fundamental questions open)). -Dagl

Probably, of course depending on how similar or dissimilar they are. This of course only works for neurons and not when including other types of cells such as immune cells. For instance, experiments are done with different neuron lines to measure their interaction on a plate most likely don't use neurons from exactly the same individual, but I wouldn't know for sure. -Dagl

I think you may misunderstand the meaning of gain of function; it does not (have to) mean that the protein is more efficient, rather it just means that the protein gains novel functions. I am however unfamiliar with Pituitary Adenoma so I looked it up in relation to PRKAR1a and it mentions that loss of PRKAR1a leads to those types of cancers, not the other way around. Possibly the gain of function mutation alters the gene expression to result in less PRKAR1a overall? Can you send me the source where you found the Gain of Function part? -Dagl

This is a discussion forum, so I will bite, but can you answer my questions before asking more questions? I think Descartes had some philosophical truth, and he did start (in some sense) the scientific method, however I think you are not entirely using this scientific method if I am to be honest. I work in science (although I still have to get my PhD so I definitely don't know it all) and at least in my field (biology) this is not the way we approach problems. Additionally, using many terms a little out of place indicates that you may not have a true understanding of said terms. So lets start; what is mechanical nature (what other nature things exist?) Could you, in depth, explain the scientific method and how it goes about solving a particular problem etc? -Dagl

I don't.... Okay can you explain what muon catalyZED fusion is? I don't understand how you want to explain something without formulas OR definitions, like... what else is there? Can you explain what you think current is, in a slightly more clear way than "it is manifested by things"? I would highly recommend taking some type of courses on physics or train your way of explaining stuff, as currently it seems (from this thread and other threads) that you are not as knowledgeable as you seem to think you are. -Dagl

Hey there! Only yesterday we had quite a civil discussion regarding matters of science yet here you seem to come off with quite a snarky tone, what's up? Can I ask who you are directing your "get a grip" to, and if it is the scientific community in general, I think a lot don't really concern themselves with whether or not religion and scientific advance are in opposition, although historically this has been the case. While religion is, by definition, un-scientific, we can still discuss it from a scientific perspective and thus this part of the forum exists. Honestly bud, it seems you are currently venting and highly defensive; I think we can all agree some members of this forum are not as diplomatic as they could be, but to be fair, some of them have seen a large amount of bullshit so far. But you are not helping currently, and I wonder what is up, as yesterday you seemed fine. @mods While the tone of OP is far from what I consider appropriate, please don't immediately close the thread (if the OP shows to actually want to have a discussion (I know OP said that he/she would rather stay at the mathematics forum but I also think OP, at the time of writing, is slightly emotional. So please give OP the chance to get into a discussion before closure of the thread). The two distinct questions at hand are fairly interesting as well; How is the church threatened by scientific advance ? Why is there a religion forum? I have answered the second one, of course it is only my perspective/opinion. To the first I would say that if the church just says that God is unprovable and they remain at "its faith, we believe." then there is no threat at all, but science has consistently proven the church their "factual" representation of the world wrong and by saying there are proves for god, you enter into the realm of reality where science consistently keeps showing what is true and what isn't. So I would say that it highly depends on how you think of "the church". Belief in god isn't threatened by science, believe in other things the church says or has said in the past is threatened as they are proven to be wrong or better explanations of phenomena come to light. -Dagl

Ahh my bad, I was arguing from the assumption that there are basically a near infinite amount of "events" happening and that thus we would almost always see a certain configuration. But I understand your point and see that it is never a certainty (However I don't think that should matter for the evolution debate, as there are enough events happening for us to say that the calcium-pump protein will at some point come to exist right?) Fair enough, thanks for the improvement!

Hmm, can you elaborate, because I don't see why there is no certainty you will ever get anything more than a mess of cards. If I can place any card in any position, and I keep doing this over and over again, then I will eventually reach that house of cards right? Regarding the mutations: The word "form" is wrong. The mutations don't form due to adaption to the environment, the mutations form, then they may "stick" in response to the environment. I don't get the problem but that is maybe because you and I understand the statistics of it differently (see the first point, maybe after elaboration I understand your point better). You agree that mutations can arise randomly (right?), then randomly something which reacts to calcium could come to exist right? Which then COULD lead to the conceptual "story" I mentioned in the first post. -Dagl Edit: Response to your edit The point is that the useless feature can tag along for a while, being spread through a population and then gain a function. Also I think it is important to note that many functions will be unknown to us, the fact that I can't answer why an increase in calcium is beneficial doesn't meant it isn't there.

One misunderstanding in how you think of natural selection; Mutations arise randomly (although not entirely with equal chances (some nucleotide's have a larger chance of mutating etc, yet it still remains random)), any mutation which is better for that organism in that environment has a higher chance to spread through the population. The mutations do not form in response to the environment. So let's say that I have a stack of cards, if I randomly arrange, then sometimes I will build (part of) a house of cards right? There is no reason why this house of cards has formed, but if it turns out that this configuration is beneficial it will spread. Mutations can give both benefits and negatives so it is possible for a particular set of mutations to come together. And while over time things that serve no purpose will eventually die off, it doesn't mean that, by chance, an organism with a currently useless feature cannot thrive. -Dagl Edit: I think that a more detailed explanation/discussion is necessary as it most likely is better to walk through the entire thing in more detail but I am currently not in a position to do so (and a little distracted with some other stuff).

Hmm, so to be sure I am not misunderstanding your question, but you wonder how the initial eye development (for instance) would start? I will give an example (which most likely isn't true, but I feel like it should give a conceptual idea of progression from 0% to 0.0000001%): Let's say we have, through random variation, the first production of a protein which imports calcium through the membrane of the cell. After a while, through more variation this protein is changed ever so slightly and now reacts to light; only letting calcium through after it has been hit by light, this change does not provide any benefit yet but let's now say that high concentrations of calcium lead to inhibition of the movement apparatus, now this organism will move towards light as the movement apparatus on the "dark" side will be more active due to lower amounts of calcium. Maybe places with light have a larger amount of food and this organism will be fitter than its peers. That could be a conceptual beginning of the eye, slight changes which lead to more and more complex mechanisms that react to light, with each step of the way increasing the fitness or maintaining the fitness of the organism. Slowly over time this organism may be able to evade predators more easily due to its eye or find food better than without an eye. Does that answer your question or did I completely miss the mark here? -Dagl Edit: fixed sentence

That is not how allergies work..... you're body reacts to molecules, so if there are 100 molecules in 200 other molecules, or there are 100 in 200000 then your body will still react to those 100. I don't understand the point of your question; most people (some with a lot more knowledge about biology, to whom you have directed your questions) have mentioned that this is most likely not true, yet you keep saying it is and asking for some answer which satisfies your assumption (that it is true). When we don't give that, you ask questions like "why can't it be that way" while ignoring the fact that IT CAN'T BE THAT WAY BECAUSE SHE WOULD DIE, IMMEDIATELY. Edit: I should add that dilution can of course lessen a response, as the likely hood that the body interacts with a molecule decreases. However in the ranges of milk and orange juice this is of course not the case.

But those people (with H20 allergy) would die, immediately. There entire body is full of it, they can't drink anything; no, the concentration of juice wouldn't suddenly change that reaction, no some things wouldn't "mask" the water. Their entire body is filled with water, rain would kill them, humid air would kill them. I think it is good to be open minded, it is also very good to be super skeptical, and if something isn't very logical its a good idea to doubt it, especially if the source is... a meh-ish source.

But..... that article can be wrong, it can lie, it can be a mistake, it can be a misunderstanding between the explanation the doctor gave the journalist. Why would you believe some random article over... logical thinking?

So.... don't you think the WAY MORE LOGICAL conclusion is that she is not allergic to H20?

How can she drink that orange juice then...?

Which is... consisting of what.... exactly;p? I think it is a little silly to not consider orange juice and milk to be H20 hahaha

Meredith, I have a question.... How would this person be alive and not be totally dehydrated...? Like don't you think it is slightly more likely that this person has some type of mental disorder or is faking it (or of course that news you have heard is just fake?)? Because I personally fail to see how this person is alive, if she can't ingest WATER. She will become totally dehydrated, and she most certainly did not live her entire life while getting water through her blood right? Also shouldn't she be getting into shock the moment the air is a bit humid? I presume that doesn't happen? -Dagl

@everyone thank you very much and sorry for my late reply, was out and about this weekend. I think I understand why I was confused (I did not consider the fact that equal distribution of mass would lead to a "trampoline where everything is equally pressured down" and for some reason I thought that with enough mass the other parts of the trampoline would form a ball. Thanks!

Hello everyone, Excuse me for my thorough lack of understanding of this topic but I was reading some of Einstein's notes on relativity & the shape of the universe and this made me thinking. I have always "understood" the idea that gravity warps space time through the trampoline analogy. The problem in my thinking is that if gravity curves space time, shouldn't the entire universe be a ball/spherical? As it contains matter everywhere, which would warp it inwards to itself (or maybe it becomes a doughnut shape?). I know that from experiments we have verified the cosmological constant (?) to be 1 or as close to 1 as we can verify experimentally, thus meaning that the universe is "flat" when looking at it zoomed out enough. So if my understanding is correct of these two things, the question becomes; what makes it flat and not a doughnut shape? Possible answers I have myself are; 1. I am misunderstanding the flatness of space and the curvature of spacetime caused by gravity (maybe they don't talk about the same type of "curvature/flatness") 2. Dark energy acts as negative mass (I don't know if this is true, but I seem to remember such an explanation of Dark Energy). 3. We don't know. If anyone could please enlighten me or point out the errors in my thinking, that would be great! My mathematical skills aren't that great, so if math is to be involved, could you explain it in some more simple conceptual style as well;p? Thanks in advance, Dagl

Ye I've heard and read about Bell's Theorem and re watched a video about it. I will make a new thread tomorrow because I realize my brain is too tired to come up with a coherent argument (I feel, although I also realize I must be wrong) that I can still come up with a scenario where there are hidden variables yet Bell's tests would not be able to detect them (again that is most likely wrong so my understanding must be shit at the moment. I'll make the thread tomorrow if I still think this by then. @Op sorry for hijacking!!!!

For the sake of trying to be helpful, could you in a few sentences give me a detailed argument of what you think the problem is (I understand that you think the realized vs unrealized library size ratio is unrealistic, but I don't really get how that is a problem)?

@Strange Could you explain in a little more detail how we can prove or have proved that hidden variables don't work with QM? I am not saying that there is any evidence for hidden variables but it seems difficult to actually prove that hidden variables are NOT consistent with QM? Say in the case of randomness of spins, in what way can we prove that there are no predetermined or hidden variables which influence the spin that we measure of certain particles. My apologies for maybe not using extremely precise nomenclature, I am a biologists with a bit of interest in QM and just general knowledge of spins, duality etc. But I don't doubt most of what I know is incorrect or at least not the entire picture. -Dagl

@Sirjon Can you explain me why you "believe" this. I never understood these "believes" that are not based on real arguments. I don't mean to be rude but to me it sounds like: "I believe that there are magical space ants underlying all particles, and the degree of their intelligence determines the mass of the particles they make up. Larger mass particles consist of smarter ants. We cannot ever see these ants right now because we don't dig deep enough into the particles. Of course there are some questions to be answered, for instance, why are the numbers of ants always the same and is only their intelligence important for the mass of the particle. Well I don't know but maybe there is some underlying geometry, it doesn't really make sense right now, but this is what I belief." Now of course this is highly exaggerated but I just don't get why, as a non-expert with no real evidence and no mathematics you just "believe" your theory. Why don't you believe the hypothesis that we currently have which are at least somewhat underlined with evidence. What makes you think "nah there are smaller particles"? Again, I don't mean to ridicule you or your argument; my mathematical/physicist skills are not good enough to make any assertions about how reality works, I am just surprised that you believe something, without seemingly much evidence. -Dagl