Ringer

Basically that's what plant's already do. They use photosynthesis and create fruits and vegetables. The efficiency of solar panels is ~17% I think and I believe photosynthesis is 25%. I would probably use either moss or algae to try this since they would be much easier to contain and wouldn't waste as much space growing up.

So not god, but like god, so god? Does not follow.

Could you link to the actual paper? At a guess it may be talking about filtering sounds by frequency or pitch (spectral) and filtering by time exposed to sound (temporal).

Neuro-myo-cytes are cell types. It just means that action potentials in the muscle cells can function with or without the nervous system. They aren't technically neurons, they are self stimulating muscle cells. But they do communicate with neurons. As for the personality bit, I would say probably not. Even in the ncbi link it says only 6 patients felt there was a change due to their hearts, which is most likely just post hoc reasoning.

I think you're explaining it well, but then again I am from the bible belt were I got kicked out of Sunday school because I didn't think Noah could fit that many animals on a boat. I wouldn't even say it's hope, I would go so far as to say it tends to be false knowledge. I like to use prayer as an example of this. Someone prays for something, while concurrently believing that their god has a plan. If the person gets what they pray for they know their prayer worked, if not it was just part of god's plan. But they have the 'false' knowledge that it was god that chose to answer or to stick to the plan.

PeterJ, the statement that physics, or any science, cannot get by without a god figure is blatantly false. In fact there is not a part of science that has found it necessary to introduce a god figure to explain something, so a god figure is completely unnecessary in any part of science.

If you're already taking calc you might as well go with 3 as long as it interests you enough to put in the extra work. It's always better to decide to take what you're interested in, even if it means more work. On the other hand, if it's not interesting to you finding motivation will be pretty difficult. At least that's how it's always been for me.

This isn't about the plausibility of God, but whether the concept of god and science can be mixed. The point of god not being useful is that it doesn't explain anything, and is not observable. Therefore, with the common definition of science, god doesn't matter to science and a mixture is pointless. But god would then have to be somehow reliably observable and measurable. The answer to those questions is simply technology, and that we don't have all the pieces. The analogy doesn't work because your comparing observable/measurable phenomena were evidence is used in attempting to an unobserved/non-measurable concept that is supposed to explain everything.

What all of these pages seem to boil down to is defining what god is. Since there can't seem to be an agreed upon definition any talk of god in a scientific context is meaningless. Even by the definition used here it would be meaningless. God is supernatural, by definition is not scientific. God is nature, so since the nature is studied by science god is always studied. But the definition is redundant, so it's unnecessary and unhelpful.

But you're changing the definition from the OP. You trust that science is giving a good explanation because it's consistently being tested and it consistently brings results that have real effects. I cannot see magnetism, but when you place metal shavings around a magnet they seem to organize in a consistent pattern. I am not putting 'faith' in the belief that there is a magnetic field. I am putting my 'trust' in evidence that has been thoroughly explained. On the same line, the point is that it is being tested, and that what is being trusted is an explanation of something that happens and if that thing happens differently a different explanation is needed. But faith, how it is used in the OP, uses the same explanation, without regard, or in absence of, tests. Faith is something that doesn't even need testing because, for the faithful, it is self evidently true in any circumstance.

Hell, if you he wants to make up what are basically non-sense assumptions put in the assumption that the rate of autopolyploidy is 3*10^-5 and gene dosage had little effect on viability. You'll get to your number in no time (from an evolutionary perspective).

No one really knows. It's generally accepted that there are things that are innate, but to list them is difficult because it's difficult to test these things on human newborns. Ethics councils always get in the way of good research.

No, that would mean the students peers mainly. Look at the sort of programs that have attempted to impart morality and see how they have worked. DARE, abstinence programs, 'scared straight', etc. These things teach that these things are bad and you shouldn't do them. That is education on morality and it usually doesn't work out very well. One reason is that educating on morality like that attempts to simplify things verging on, or flat out, lying. But if you educate on these things factually (pros/cons of drug use, safe sex, etc) there tends to be a higher rate of positive outcomes. It's not a stumbling block, it's a very large wall. As an example, if someone in a position of authority taught my child it is morally unacceptable to have sex before marriage I would be pretty angry. Then again, if my wife, who is an educator, taught that it is morally acceptable to have an abortion we would probably be driven out of town. Where was that said?

There are a few schools I know of that allow you to make your own major as long as it involves classes that are already present and isn't just a take everything because I want to major.

I don't think either is the most important, but I would consider teaching facts more important than teaching morals. To have an education system attempt to teach morals one would need a standard set of agreed upon morality, which there is not. Also, children's moral development has little to do with what they are taught and more to do with what people do that are around them.

You could always apply to other schools

It looks like it started in 09, and got a necro-post in 11. So from what I can tell you may see it resurface again in 2015.

Because they're not educated in it well perhaps? It's not about everyone being a scientist it's about people knowing how to not get ripped off by pseudoscience. What does respect have to do with education? Yeah, because no one benefits from electricity, healthcare, clean water, food, and everything else in modern life. Example of being pulled in by pseudoscience, and why science education is important. And if society and politicians were better at examining evidence and coming to reasonable conclusions we could face these problems much better. You realize the IQ of anything is 100. It's curved so that the average is always 100. And wouldn't you want them to vote while having a basis in critical thinking, doing their own research, etc.

You use should a lot, it doesn't matter what the brain should do. It does what it does, and how it incorporates information is not much like a computer at all. Even if you could have 19 years of pure information upload you would forget it just as easily as you would forget things learning them normally. And that's assuming you could even do something like that, which, for the record, I highly doubt.

So I realize that I skipped/mixed up a part in my explanation, I was half explaining a junctional complex. Let's try this again. Tight junctions are a type of cell to cell junction that creates a selective barrier by sealing gaps between epithelial cells. So where ever there are epithelial cells there are tight junctions. The claudin and occludin proteins form a kind of puzzle that fit together at the regions of the cell that need to be sealed. This creates an extremely tight barrier directly at the transmembrane protein. Desmosomes are cell to cell junctions that use cadherins to bind to intermediate filaments to mediate hydrophilic adhesion to other intermediate filaments. Individually they are much weaker than most other adhesions, but the amount of binding filaments gives the junction a lot of mechanical strength. I think they are mainly found in skin cells, but the protein family cadherins are freaking everywhere.

There are different ways of how negative feedback work in certain circumstances because there are multiple ways negative feedback can work, but, IIRC, it doesn't get that complicated until you work with electromagnetism (which is all just magic anyway). I don't think that matters in a biological system, either of the two should work. Maybe you should define your variables, because I'm just assuming they're representing production rates or concentrations at a certain time. So A could be t(0)=[hormone] and B could be t(x)=(A - [hormone]). A negative feedback gives a negative for AB.

To add to Immortal's post, desmosomes are proteins in the plasma membrane who function in cell adhesion as well as some types molecular adhesion. In reference to tight junctions desmosomes on both cellular membranes will interact, usually winding into each other, and create a very tight connection so that the membranes are basically joined. Depending on the cell type the junctions can have different functions but overall they work as a barrier.

So can knowledge, the difference is that use of evidence and knowledge can do measurably better than placebo.

And we see how sadistic this site truly is. Really though I kill about anything that is being overly annoying, which usually includes flies, mosquitoes, ants, etc. Anything that kills the things that I kill are my ally and I leave them to their killing. Unless, of course, my wife sees any of them. I then apologetically kill the mutual predator and try to get my wife to see reason. It hasn't worked yet.

It answered the question you asked. Depends on how you segment them, just look at the electromagnetic spectrum, that's all colors are. That's answered in the link. No and no. Not relevant. I just did Aaaand not relevant.