MichaelPenn

Hey everyone! Thanks for checking out my post. My name is Michael Kovich and I am a 20 year old, 3rd year Biology (Pre-Medicine) major at Temple University in Philadelphia, PA. I joined this forum with the goal of hearing the thoughts of others, learning from their knowledge, and sharing my own as well. When it comes to my interests... well, there are just far too many to name - such a wide array of topics interest me. However, I have a special focus on medicine, mitochondria, transhumanism, and genetics. Feel free to send me a PM if you'd like to chat. I look forward to meeting all of you and becoming a part of this community. Have a happy New Years!

I believe it's pertinent to make clear the difference between "evolution" and "natural selection," first of all. Next, if we're discussing evolution (and not n.s.) then are we focusing only on that which occurs biologically or also the more colloquial sense of evolution of the human condition and society? As far as I'm aware, all life evolves... DNA will constantly be mutated, genetic variation will continue, etc. However, it is my opinion that the "next step" for human evolution is in us grabbing the reins and directing it ourselves through transhumanist pursuits such as biotechnology, cybernetics, nanotechnology, genetic engineering, etc. I'd also like to thank Arete for posting some very interesting research above.

Please quote me on where exactly it was that I said this. I quoted my original statement, on multiple occasions, making it clear that my point was that if a woman doesn't want to have a child, there are plenty of ways she can work to prevent that. I'll say, yet again, that I did not push my statement as scientific fact - but rather as personal observation. You're fighting something that just hasn't occurred. Age is irrelevant. Your belief is pure conjecture. Well, we have the statistics on condoms and we have the statistics on the pill and other options. Let's look at an example set: From American Pregnancy Association: "The typical use of male condoms, which is the average way most people use them, has a failure rate of 14-15%. This means that 14-15 people out of every 100 will become pregnant during the first year of use. Spermicidal agents increase the effectiveness to over 95% when used correctly and consistently." From Planned Parenthood: Birth Control Implant - Implanon: "Effectiveness is an important and common concern when choosing a birth control method. Implanon is very effective. Less than 1 out of 100 women a year will become pregnant using Implanon." So we have a male using a correctly worn condom with a spermicidal agent, equaling over 95% effectiveness. The aforementioned male is having sex with a female using Implanon, with which less than one out of one hundred women a year will become pregnant. Combine the two of them and that sure seems incredibly rare to me, as both the condom AND Implanon would need to fail. You could even go so far as to factor in the male's sperm count, etc. and how that affects the likelihood of pregnancy - because even every heterosexual couple who has unprotected sex doesn't result in a pregnancy.

You're just playing with words now. It's quite silly. 1. Are you familiar with empirical research? I quote from Wikipedia, "Empirical research is a way of gaining knowledge by means of direct and indirect observation or experience." That's what I cited in my earlier post. I did not push it as the results of some peer-reviewed, published paper, so let's not get off-track here. I spoke of psychological damage, then further elaborated with the following, "I have never met a psychologically healthy woman who had an abortion then proceeded to say it was no big deal and hasn't affected her life at all." - In context, it was clear that I meant, "I have never met a woman who had an abortion then proceeded to say it was no big deal and has not negatively affected her life at all." And I've met many more than "at least 10." Clearly, this would equate to being psychologically damaging. Once again, I'm not seeing what you're actually contributing with this post. Did you see me write anywhere that it's standard for someone to use both condoms and the pill? Not at all. What I had done was recommend a dual-approach in order to significantly reduce one's chances of being faced with considering an abortion. If you go back into my post, you'll see the following statement preceding my comment about using two methods: "There are plenty of options to prevent a child from being conceived." What I was very clearly trying to convey was that it's entirely possible for people who do not desire to have a child to take steps to significantly reduce their chances of having one - the aforementioned being one such example. Additionally, where are you seeing any level of conjecture in my statement? Are you saying it's conjecture for me to say that if a man wearing a condom and a woman using birth control decide to have sex, their chances of conception are significantly lower than that of a couple using one method, or no method at all?

I have never met a psychologically healthy woman who had an abortion then proceeded to say it was no big deal and hasn't affected her life at all. Empirical (Note - I say 'psychologically healthy' because I did meet a woman who suffered from a myriad of psychological illnesses and had an abortion. Due to her condition, I don't think she even actually realized what had happened.) If you go back into my post, you'll notice that I said the odds of both of these events occurring at once, then resulting in actual conception. Agreed.

HIV kills a patient by effectively neutralizing their immune system, with the patient eventually succumbing to opportunistic infection. Now, as we know, white blood cells are synthesized in the marrow. Simply having a marrow transplant isn't enough, because the virus still hangs around. One possible solution is to find someone who produces white blood cells that lack the receptors which HIV often uses to get inside the cells. [Receptors: 'HIV most commonly uses CCR5 and/or CXCR4 as a co-receptor to enter its target cells.'] If you were to take marrow from that individual and transplant it into a patient, they would produce new white blood cells (without the receptors), making it more difficult for HIV to find a way inside. What's the problem? 1. It's rare to find someone lacking such receptors. 2. It's exceptionally difficult to find a bone marrow donor who matches you. (Combine 1 and 2, and the numbers are astronomically low.) 3. This still isn't an end-all solution. Someone above sort of mentioned a case where we witnessed this:

1. Do you support the government funding of animal tests in the United States? No, I do not. There are other alternatives and more suitable resources available to reduce the negative impact of science and medicine on life at large. There are also more effective testing methods out there. See: Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine; Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing. 2. Within the last decade, do you feel animal testing has benefited the United States? I feel as though animal testing has been used as a part of the process of developing things that have benefited us, but that the same developments could have been made using alternatives to animal testing. 3. Do you support cosmetic animal testing in the United States? Absolutely not! 4. What percentage of animal tests conducted in the United States do you think are carried out by cosmetic companies? I believe it is around 20%.

Studies show that as literacy rates go up, unwanted pregnancy goes down. Education works. That needs to be our first line of defense. I am a Democrat. I am an atheist. And I am pro-life. Yes, a woman has a right to her body. But a child is not her body. It's a separate entity. I don't believe in abstinence - it's just not practical. But we have oral contraceptives, vaginal contraceptives, condoms, etc. There are plenty of options to prevent a child from being conceived. Abortion is psychologically damaging, it effectively ends a life, etc. In the incredibly rare chance that a woman on birth control, and a man using a condom, somehow manage to conceive a child, why is adoption not an option? Why do we instantly jump to the idea of killing the child, rather than finding someone else to care for it? Surely there is a couple out there who would be willing to step up and take the baby to keep it from being aborted. Now, from a medical perspective, does outlawing abortion work? Interesting question to think about, right? Will it deter people from considering it an option? Or will it lead to unregulated, unsafe abortions, which may end up doing more harm? Truth is, I don't know. If you believe in abortion, where is the line drawn? Can a woman have an abortion every year, because she decides she doesn't feel like using protection? How far along is too far along? Whatever your answer to that particular question is, why do you select that period of time to draw the line? What really is the difference between a fetus and a newborn? Neither one can fend for themselves - they still need something to help sustain them. I don't have all the answers, but I ask this: If we decide to put abortion in a positive light, is that really the road we want to take? Or is it better that we educate people, develop innovative methods for birth control, and push the current methods we already have? I have enough trust in people to say that if you give them the right information, they'll most often make the right decision.

The power you reference has been around since 2001 with the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists resolution. Additionally, "All persons arrested and detained according to the provisions of section 1021, including those detained on U.S. soil, whether detained indefinitely or not, are required to be held by the United States Armed Forces. The requirement does not extend to U.S. citizens though there is debate over the wording of 'requirement' in the revision under section 1032." Also found this: After signing the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 into law, President Obama issued a statement on it that addressed "certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of terrorism suspects." In the statement Obama maintains that "the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. [...] My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law." So, how can you be up-in-arms against such provisions in the NDAA, when the ability to execute these exact actions has been around since 2001? Furthermore, do you really think that the United States government is going to walk around and just wildly pick up American citizens, without real cause, hold them 'indefinitely,' and never file charges? Do you realize what the backlash / repercussions of this would be? You need to realize that the government is going to act with reason and tact when handling something like this. They're not going to just mass-imprison a million people next week.

Sorry if I'm not reading your post correctly, but I'm still unclear on your procedure. For this experiment to have been more correctly executed, it would have been appropriate to do this: 1. Create 1 dish with pure agar only. 2. Create an identical dish with agar and garlic type a (minced, for example). 3. Swab a location (ie. door handle) and rub that into the pure agar dish. 4. Swab the same handle again and rub that into the dish with garlic type a. Next, to help test the idea that the garlic transferred its own bacteria, create a third dish with pure agar and place the garlic on that, without adding any collected bacteria. Then you'll allow the specimens to incubate for a while and observe the results. Edit: The key to a scientific experiment is to anticipate/identify possible variables and influences on your results. A well-designed experiment would effectively account for these somehow, allowing you to determine that what you are observing hasn't been altered inadvertently. For example, if you don't have a plate with garlic and no added specimens, someone could say, "Well the plate with bacteria + garlic developed to a greater degree than the plate with only agar and bacteria because the garlic stimulated growth / provided nutrition for the bacteria / etc." and you would not be able to argue this point, nor would you be able to determine if that was actually the case at all.

For several years now, I've maintained an especially strong interest in mitochondria, considering their critical importance to the human body and their potential role in the aging process at large. Recently, after taking an undergraduate cell biology course, I've started doing some investigation into mitophagy, specifically. However, I'm encountering difficulty in both finding quality, relevant resources and interpreting the data provided by the ones that I do manage to come across. I acknowledge that, in order to fully understand the material, I will surely need to complete additional upper-level courses, but I'm looking to set this in motion so that I can try to unlock this subject as I progress through my education, as well as learn as much as I can independently (and with the help of SFN members). Right now, I'm seeking to learn about the fundamental aspects of mitochondrial autophagy. If anyone can lend a hand or point me in the direction of appropriate resources, I would be greatly appreciative. First and foremost, I am curious as to how the cell determines that it is time for a mitochondrion to be degraded. What is it exactly that sets off the process? How much do we know about it? I suspect that being able to fully comprehend the system that instructs the cell to have a mitochondrion degraded would open the door to the investigation of altering that process - either by preventing or encouraging it, as appropriate. I figure that, if mitochondria become less efficient over time, inducing autophagy in an affected mitochondrion may have beneficial effects. See the snippets below: Once again, I appreciate any and all assistance. Thank you!