Genecks

To answer this question in a more specific manner, I suppose people would eat certain plants, which could have been C3, C4, or CAM. However, I believe this would depend on the natural habitat, ecosystem, and so forth. Sugar cane is a type of plant that people could eat, albeit it wasn't as sweet to some people. Also, some people would eat pineapples and other fruits, because they were available and well adapted to the environment. Maize is a C4 plant that people would often eat. Regardless, however, sweet plants, such as corn, tended to create cavities in ancient persons because of the sugar content.

What kind of changes? What connections?

I figure it's electron and chemical signaling that changes/alters/is built. I'm not too sure. If one thing is constant, then something else must be moving around. That's the philosophical bit right there: dependent vs. independent.

Here's some information on plant anatomy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C4_plants#C4_Leaf_Anatomy

Try this: A conducted .edu google search.

Why not build it like Edison did? Why not use something like a sodium vapor lamp? I don't understand the point of this challenge.

Hmm... What would happen if I touched it, while it was floating? Would I get zapped? 17 kv - 50 kv and with only aluminum foil to cover it... I think I'd get quite a shock.

Well, the easiest way is to blow up earth. It probably doesn't take 6.5 billion dollars to do that... maybe 6+ billion people... Afterwards, just use the earth to thrust whatever object you need thrusted.

I never really see women in science these days. From being at my college for over two years, I've only come across one woman who explicitly stated she was a science major. Now, I don't know about other countries and nations, but I'm still thinking America has that science vs. art gap it did in the past decades. I like to think about the past, in terms of how girls didn't really mess with video games, technology, and more because it was a "guy thing." However, I do see more women messing with technology, science, and more. Yet I don't see many women taking it up as a career. I continue to see women with interests in psychology, business, and nursing. Albeit, nursing requires knowledge of science, it doesn't necessarily make someone a science major. So, does anyone have a rough idea of how many women actually take up science or a field of science as a career/major? Any statistics? I'd hate to be biased, but I'm thinking not a lot of women are into science, perhaps 10% of women.

How about watering it with salt water or something each day. I suppose watering it with a certain chemical would eventually make it become brittle, dry, and wilted.

I'm curious as to how the fictional literature had this chemical name in place: sodium lithium boron silicate hydroxide.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6584229.stm

http://allpsych.com/psychology101/perception.html

I was reading a wikipedia article, and supposedly celery seed has healing effects on types of arthritis. Does anyone know why and how this is? Does anyone understand the way the seeds act and react with the body to create these effects?

Look people, it's logic--not a bunch of speculation about the sciences... gah...

Transhumanism/Daoism.

1) Yeah, I should have edited that bit about DNA. I was too lazy to do so. 2) Right, I forgot about the ribosomes.

Each statement can be true if independent, but cannot be true if dependent on the other sentences.

I see what you mean. I've often pondered this, but I never really analyzed it for more than a brief half-second. Amino acids make up proteins, and proteins tend to do most of the biological processes within humans. However, tRNA tends to make the proteins by chaining and linking amino acids. I'm thinking you're question is the following: Are amino acids the basis for all biological actions and reactions within biological species? Amino acids are also chemicals formed together, which make proteins. So, chemicals are held responsible for making the amino acids. The amino acids are used to make proteins, but they can't be made unless made by tRNA. Primarily, I'm thinking yes. If you don't have the amino acids/protein(s), then you can't do action X from part B. However, if you don't have part B, then the amino acids/protein(s) can't do action X. Protein (composed of amino acids) are responsible for actions and reactions. However, they need something to combine with to do those things. So, they are a major part. However, they don't do "everything." DNA is not entirely composed of amino acids. I know that for sure. DNA -> mRNA -> tRNA -amino acids-converted to-> proteins -> proteins + part B = biological actions and reactions Then again, there might be some proteins that simply decompose, but I don't have an encyclopedic knowledge on amino acid combinations and protein possibilities.

I didn't really notice, because I changed to the "pseudo-new" layout before it was made standard. I couldn't stand a board with VB as a logo. Oh, the names are green. Hmm...

So, how strict are you enforcing fallacies? I've known people to use circular reasoning without understanding the fallacy. To tell you the truth, not many people understand what a fallacy is.

I dislike the blue stars for the experts. I think they are clunky, gaudy, and ugly. Perhaps something more discrete but with awesomeness. Maybe they could have a spinning, gold star by the side of their avatar.

Anyone think it could be a "discover vs. invent" scenario? The chemist invents and the biologist discovers. I mean, yeah, we all have to study it; but in the end you'll have to invent or discover something for the field. I'm thinking the biochemist will invent something to affect something discovered. The molecular biologist will discover something. What does biochemistry mean to me? If it were on an exam, I'd probably put this down: The subject of chemistry within biological system, which involves the chemical interactions between biological species. That would be how ions, compounds, and more are exchanged, altered, created, and more within a biological system. Example: The breakdown of sugars. What does molecular biology mean to me? The subject of chemical composition of biological components, which involves understanding how biological species are composed, maintained, and formed. That would be how proteins fold, DNA is created, and more. Example: How mRNA is turned into DNA through chemical processes, or how a biological molecule is chemically composed: DNA is composed of chemicals. I don't think molecular biology ever goes into depth about the chemical relationships like biochemistry does. It's simply an overview. I've viewed biochemisty and molecular biology that way. One teaches you about all the things you could study into depth, and the other goes immeditately into depth but takes a long time to cover everything. That's from an on-the-spot assumption. I could be wrong about it, so correct me if I'm wrong. As an aside, be careful about what you study in a university. If you want a four-year degree, many universities give you a choice: a degree in biochemistry, chemistry, or biology. Unfortunately, you're not allowed to obtain a degree in biology after getting a degree in biochemistry. Some universities are odd about things like that. I'm not saying that applies toward all universities, just some. If you learn how to "hack" these things, you can get a full book. It's simply suggested you don't provide people with the code to make it a systematic book: 1) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=stryer.TOC&depth=2 2) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=mboc4.TOC&depth=2

What devices? What program? What system? Hmm? Could someone start using terminology instead of indefinite language?

Cost, production, availability of database to users, cost of supplies... Is such a system already available to the public?