foodchain

Now giving how mass spectrometry works I would like to purpose a question that popped in my head yesterday. Say you have a certain chunk of DNA, would it be possible to use say some type of chemical to elongate it in a tube, and then basically run the length of it with say a type of laser to figure out what each base is? Basically you would put an amount of DNA in a tube or vial type device for example, and then say some type of farmed or culture enzyme would basically uncoil it and make it straight, maybe some type of chemical strip in the vial possibly, and then after the strand is fully elongated you could run a type of laser along it to figure out what each base is?

Its not so much corruption as in people lying on purpose or using there position to make all kinds of many regardless of other affiliated affects such might hold, as rather as what’s going on with it. For instance, many people on this board come here with ideas, and even before anyone asks a technical question about whatever they may be talking about they are typically attacked as phonies:confused: This has not happened to me its just that I have witnessed it. Then in the real world in some random shot about a year ago on the John Stewart show some physicist made a claim that time travel is impossible? Of course with recent discoveries now the evolution of humans is put more into question on exactly how the process went, which would have never occurred if someone did not ask the question and that’s generally the point. Now I might have a skewed perception of things, but what individual sees perfectly on all things anyway. The point being is science really pushing to make inquisitive scientists? Or is science simply just sterilizing people into existing concepts. For instance, evolution, its very real, but it also has a very real amount of unanswered questions in it. Same with physics, or geology. I am just getting scared because the more I learn about science as a whole the more it seems that asking questions or even being fringe is a bad place to be for some reason. Lastly, if someone is science was onto the big idea that will shape science for another hundred years, like relativity of evolution, the idea that appears to me from this is such people took it upon themselves to ask such a question, and then figure out how to test it or prove it. If such people just wanted to play it safe and stick to the norm, well such ideas may still be awaiting discovery, and really who knows what has been lost by it all already by doing such. Basically science I think is corrupt the day its negative for a scientist to think outside of the box, pretty much in my view it holds as much promise for understanding and advancement as thinking inside of the box.

Now I know the title is a bit alarming to some, but just hear me out before you go off the deep end on me. I question everything because my care for the field in general makes me highly critical of anything really. Now, don’t get me wrong, I love science but I have issues on where its going. It seems to me that science bears some of the basic social ills that most anything human suffers. What I mean from this is science was basically put forward as a system or means in which to try to deduce truth about the natural world around us and or reality. Now I know that science has been applied to more then just what some would consider natural, though I don’t know how unnatural anything is that exists physically, but that’s besides the point. What I am getting at is it seems that science has narrowed itself. Now this can be good or bad depending on where you sit. IN my view I see it as bad as it subtracts the sense of awe for me personally, as in I have a million ideas I would like to set experiments up for, but it seems as if science wants to make things to fit a certain pattern. Now this can be good simply because its uses that which is already known, but in retrospect people only got that information by simply making inquiry. I think science is slowly killing the inquiry stage at large. I mean we have people like Richard Dawkins that due to eminence can really say most anything he wants, to Einstein. He probably could have said something completely random and people world have followed because he was Einstein. I think its paramount to enforce a very inquisitive nature in scientists. Simply because from the bulk of people that take to science surely advances would be made in the end, rather then bottlenecking everyone into certain accepted patterns of thought. Now I don’t know about you, but in physics for example it seems as if math alone was able in many ways to move into almost qualifying for empirical truth. Now I don’t want to turn this into nominalism versus essentialism, but Oxygen for instance is just a human made word. To get back to the math on this, I don’t know of any naturally occurring square roots in the universe, as in some floating v shaped figure that performs a squaring function on matter and energy, or stuff that makes up the physical universe and its phenomena. To biology, with the concept of genetics. I have studied for instance various symptoms people have with a particular genetic disorder. When I go and read the doctors outlook on the disease, compared to the peoples symptoms, its almost as if the doctor lives in his or her own head rather then reality. So basically, has science lost its edge, has it become somewhat corporate basically? Do upcoming scientists strike out on there own anymore or simply listen for what the current "genius" has to say? In all reality how much advancement do you think is lost by keeping science so stale and sedated?

Besides thought in general there is always sleep deprivation, just do that for about 68 hours without artificial aid and you will start seeing things, this is made worse by doing hard labor during this period of time pretty much nonstop.

Right, so how do the laws of probability dictate what is what? Say I have a million sided dice somewhere in a computer program, basically a random number generator, going from just random numbers, I am not going to get anything back but random numbers, so how does a probably random number generator produce say equations then, in retrospect to how did probability produce atoms?

Give me some time to go over this as my words happen to be jumbled at this point in time.

Well that’s not much to postulate, of course I don’t know what’s going to happen tomorrow. I can use statistically what I do to make a guess but of course I don’t know for sure, I don’t think that really helps me with my question. Is QM really just that then? As for the idea that molecules will simply just dissociate themselves from a system, is that to say if I have a molecule of CO2 in some "vacuum" for instance that at any time it could just break apart into C and O2, or for that matter C could just break apart, or is there were the strong and weak forces come into play? I would like to ask what implications this has on the early universe but that’s probably way off topic huh?

Yes, but recently a women won the lottery in the news in which she bought the ticket on her dead boyfriends grandmas credit card or something and then lost the money because it was theft of the credit card. Now statistically I don’t even know how you would go about associating those odds, or even what the odds are against something like that occurring or if simply that states statistics only go so far and quite frankly are far removed from being natural. Away from statistics, which I know that for various reasons statistics are employed in QM, but if the system is random overall, how could any order ever arise or for that matter persist? I guess what I am asking is how does QM validate the existence of say any particular element, and the persistence of said element in time? Is it simply just the strong or weak forces at play with that and the fact electrons and protons like each other that lends to elements being stable? The following is cited from the article on QM from wiki. Now I know wiki does not have to be flawless, but from what I can understand of QM again I just miss the point on how stability is achieved through it. "Einstein himself is well known for rejecting some of the claims of quantum mechanics. While clearly inventive in his field, he did not accept the more exotic corollaries of quantum mechanics, such as the lack of deterministic causality and the assertion that a single subatomic particle can occupy numerous areas of space at one time. He also noticed some of the more exotic consequences of entanglement and used them to formulate the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox, in the hope of showing that quantum mechanics has unacceptable implications. The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox shows that measuring the state of one particle can instantaneously change the state of its entangled partner, although the two particles can be an arbitrary distance apart. However, this effect does not violate causality, since no transfer of information is possible." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

This is a thread from another thread in which a member thought I should make a thread out of the question I posed in the other thread. So here is the question. From what I understand of QM there seems to be a lot of chaos in general. So what I would like to know is basically how does something orderly, such as chemistry derive from what appears to be such an random system. In that I don’t know of bonded elements arbitrarily dissociate for unknown reasons, and bonding in general seems to be rather regular. Now I know that QM is a rather small domain overall(subatomic), but I think it would apply very easily to chemistry.

So basically you are treating the cell as an ion or electron gradient in which Hydrogen becomes the focal point of activity? I don’t know, I mean I always wondered about protein movement in a cell and densities of such proteins, but I think that’s outside of the topic at hand. Most signaling activities in cells revolve around proteins and physical structures though. I see you go into that with the DNA example but I think the form of DNA when in its double helix is the product of a series of steps and of course histones. Structural biology is interesting though. I always wondered about how primitive a modern cell is compared to say bacteria and what the organization alone allows for.

Not to but it but sense you guys seem to know what you are talking about maybe you could help with a curveball I cant seem to hit. On the quantum level there is a relationship to the rest of the visible or known universe right? As if carbon and oxygen for instance have quantum effects going on, but they have natural and predictable behavior, as in carbon for instance wont instantly decide it cant bond with oxygen after the fact. So what I would like to know is simply how stable is a quantum system? From all the verbs tossed out from QM that I vaguely understand it sounds as if the universe should just randomly turn into a microwave with a slice of pizza in it, or basically just not be able to persist in time in any regular form? Am I off truly on my understanding of things?

Not to derail your thread, but do you study the mutation rates of such in variable environments by any chance? I would offer to help but my only advice that I can muster is it just sounds like a lot of hard work.

I think the studies into female male attractions with humans in regards to your facial hair one varies around reproduction actually, as in what’s attractive naturally varies attached to other variables, like FSH, just kidding. I think its interesting that say hair that is kept on humans typically can have reasons easily associate with such from reality. Such as a majority of heat loss in people occurs above the shoulders.

In response to pioneer. Right, but in biochem if memory serves the molecular wight for instance of some proteins in rather immense, so I think that’s why they use the Dalton. To get more to the point the chemistry of life is diverse, such as with the double helix or chromosomes where do you place the role of histones? I mean I don’t doubt that your idea has some good potential, as in I don’t want to be scene as a naysayer simply to play devils advocate. I just don’t think its fully respective of the reality of say a living cell. What about the golgi apparatus, or the cis and trans of such? To the cell wall, to just about anything you can find details that are of importance. Down to even the structure of say a protein has an importance. Also the cell takes on many physical aspects, such as microtubules, as in its not all just a reaction per say... Again I think your idea is a good idea, and I don’t think its totally bad, but I don’t think you can use it to explain the basic building block of life as we know it. I mean I think understanding how hydrogen behaves in a living system is a perfectly empirical idea, but I don’t however think that hydrogen alone can explain the cell.

I don’t see why not on the environmental biology tip. I don’t even know why its called that save I think its because I have to take more environmental science classes along with for some reason I am yet to fully understand a good chunk of geology., speaking of geology…

I have to disagree on an angle with the public education. Even if you live in a state you are still an American citizen. So public education would at least have to uphold the constitution and say not ban certain students because of some trait they have. ON that note though you can see in some states that evolution in science education is basically being destroyed and that creationist bullshit is making its way into such. That then would basically be government and religion in the same bed if you ask me. I agree, and tried to hint on that in the ending of my post. Still, out of all the ideological constructs people have created, you don’t see gangs of physicists and chemists attempting to kill each other, or at least not literally. It seems of theism brings about the most brutal aspects, that and I guess nationalism.

Environmental biology, still have a way to go, mainly from bouncing around. To be honest I started in computer science, went to chemistry, then thought about biochem, then simply ended up where I am at now. I think its safe to say its where I will stay. I have no idea about education past the B.S level, there is a microbio program and a wildlife bio program I have spent about twenty minutes looking at, but such is to far off for any real thought.

I don’t hate per say the people, just the philosophy they hold. I mean in one instance, lets take politics. What if some president comes into power that feels the need to say remove evolution from public education because the righteous followers of the holy unicorn despise such. Its a hellish thought really to think that in all reality nothing really prevents this except for human endeavor. I mean debating some of them they hold the idea that natural selection has to be some purely genetic mechanism inside an organism with clairvoyance to the outside world... To the idea of entropy being so horrible abused for an agenda. They don’t hold any rigor overall to arguments, and will simply act on emotional whims basically to support some thoroughly refuted philosophy that allows them the ability to not have to think about anything really, it quite vulgar and basically offensive to me. Its not only that, but of course such has a long history of leading to persecution. I think India is the only nation on the face of the earth where the Jews have not been persecuted, why all the horror stories from it? Bottom line to me is theism in any modern form or basically the concept in general is nothing more the ignorance. Most modern religions have been around for thousands of years, and I don’t see humanity making some great strides towards utopia for such, or for that matter it even really making a difference. I am not going to say why people do what they do, its probably a vastly complex subject, but what I do know is regardless of social role history shows that people period are capable of anything really, from tossing children to starving dogs to raping them, it does not matter per say what you align you supposed character with. To compound injury with assault, basically if religion had its way evolution would be banned, as I am sure anything that conflicted with such, this would include human life like it has so many times in past been the case. I also feel its akin to the movie terminator, in that it will not stop until its ripping your heart out, religion that is.

I just molded the quote so you would know this is in response to you, nothing more. Animal behavior is neat subject. Even rats have a very complex social system and or behavior. To watch a modern day movie you can see in that even that human behavior is also vastly complex, or not eloquent or beautiful if I may for simple explanations. In anthropology though you can find the impact culture has on a person. You don’t find flukes in a society were someone has say the mannerisms naturally common to an alien culture, or even more advanced concepts such as language and the relationship it has with cognition. I do not see as to why this would be so different for our ancestors. In regards to the fur loss question I originally posed, the behavior of grooming, where did that go, was such genetic at one point and became a holdover or ghost really? As to molecularly speaking, does say a chimpanzee have such in its code to groom, or was that in code at some point. Cleaning ones self seems to be a prevalent behavior in a great deal of life, superorganisms like ants even administer an "anti biotic soap" really. So if that was a genetic function, that would have had to go along in some level with the loss of hair, unless that behavior was phased out slowly due to use, which brings another question about the relationship of the phenotype to the genotype and genetic variance. Maybe grooming has just taken a new face, and never left. I guess this is why it would be important to be able to put all the pieces together evolutionarily speaking, from the molecular to the ecological for life. With such data I think objectivity in questions like this would have no trouble finding answers, its just a shame that life does go extinct and we really cant remove the top mile of the African continent and shift through it for fossils, we can however minus modern day extinction start such, and heck, maybe unravel the "genome of life in total".

Because, if it takes X amount of energy to say have something, what process can you use to remove this. I mean I don’t understand the difference between the concept of a replicator compared to say some device that will make it effortless to walk up a set of stairs, the work is still required in some form.

What I don’t get is the idea that many animals occupy regions on the planet that happen to be very warm, they also are closer to the ground which also has an impact. The point being they did not lose fur. There is work in action about the lineage in which a specie, which was to be giant in size actually compared to modern man supposedly went extinct from one aspect that its surface area took in to much heat compared to its ability to regulate such. I don’t off hand know the species name, but it was in Africa and was rather large. Supposedly unlike reptiles our relationship to the environment has an impact on our body size, but I think this is hypothetical if I have my memory on it straight. So I guess it would just have to be an issue to see what all kinds of traits have come about to deal with temperature, I could easily see losing hair as a reason for such, but I think that being bipedal also greatly helped with heat regulation. From six feet to the ground, the change in temperature can very greatly.

Yes. Basically I understand the reality that energy has a diversity of forms, but let me just provide a brief introduction to my idea:D Say you are juggling, in real life that is a few objects, well that well only occur so long as basically its being powered by something, other then that it ceases to be. I think this basically holds true for anything. The energy stays conserved, but it can take on various forms of course. Now life would have to be able to satisfy its energy requirement in any giving environment or instance, I would say currently, or course in speculation, that this would reflect on even the most smallest level, such as the chemistry of life even. Now i made a mistake that was point out to me in equating this with natural selection, in that natural selection for the sake of comfort is nothing more then genes. Now this is all good and dandy but I guess I made the mistake by going on to what the genes happen to be about, which in essence is basically keeping genes as what they are, instructions or at that point to the currently surviving form of life as a symposium of energy and matter interactions in an environment of the same, akin to the idea that you don’t have hurricanes in Arizona yet, simply put the environment is "selecting" against such. I think viewing life in this form, such as the movement of energy and any particular "geometry" it takes is fascinating. Such as in nature, say with the shape of planets and solar systems, if such is not the product of basically a equilibrium of sorts of physical phenomena working itself out. I would also suggest that these interactions are going for some base equilibrium almost as the phenomena seems to be rather regular, such as dropping a drip of water into a pool and getting back circles of a certain geometry over a certain period of time. Life still has to satisfy this or live in accordance with such, and as an example I used the fish, which seems streamlined for efficiency, to the idea of a bird and its wings basically being the same design along with fish that humans use in such environments, because physically it works. So overall, in a reduced fashion but of course stretching the various forms of reality, such as DNA, I think finding out ways to gauge energy in living systems such as thermal energy regulation down to even bonding of chemicals in living systems could open up new ways to get quantitative with life overall, such as food selection, to chemical ecology, behavior, I really do think rich grounds stand there and plan to work this idea in real life. I think the best place to start would simply be microbes or bacteria really, to possibly someday, which I think would be good would be a working example with a type of insect of plant that has a short life cycle. I mean we all have to eat right, cant get to cold or to hot…

I wont simply just advise against the text use, but past the initial spectacle of it all you might not find to many people interested in your threads. If you like to ask questions, like I do, speaking or typing in more proper English is the fit choice to make. You don’t have to be a grammar Nazi or anything, just use whole words for instance, such as instead of IDK, use, I don’t know. I don’t really feel its a social conundrum really as much as it will simply make the use of the boards easier for you. ----------------------- Many concepts in physics are not easy to apply with words. The effects on observers for instance can be shown in math, and then of course it does occur in reality. One example of the physical world, though not directed related would be the idea that at a distance you will see the motion of someone dribbling a basketball before you hear the noise, dimensions such as distance in relation to the difference in speed and sound are some of the things that produce this phenomena. Think of relativity basically like that, as something that occurs naturally, its just that the people that typically study this stuff do it mainly with math, like blackboards filled to the limit with such.

If that thread is still around or if you have a link to such I would die to see it. I get where you are going with some aspects, like the overall lack of interdisciplinary fields within the natural sciences basically, such as an environmental biochemist for example. On the biology lingo though, yes biology practically has its own language, but on the more basic premise of it the B.S level of biology really is to introduce to the field as a whole, and then from this massive field of fields you typically will specialize. Also, if you study the lingo for a little bit, say just read about stuff related to such for about an hour a day, you will start to find patterns and stuff will start to look easier really. Such as having four limbs, in biology you might get the term tetrapod tossed at you instead, but there is usually a reason for such which goes back into a working theory and so on.

I have not been around that long so this is my first time seeing such:D I have not idea why people get onto hydrogen in the way you purpose, maybe because we have so much of it as a constitute of our structure, but even then its not just floating about freely. My overall best guess comes down to a perceptual issue. You have people educated as chemists, then biologists educated as biologists working the chemistry of life issue, the same with physics. I read the wiki link on biophysics, and it seems that crossing over to various fields, all of which in the natural sciences study basically nature, but there seems to be some kind of a wall people cant breech, they can only view the objects from there scholarly training. Lastly the chemistry of life has to work, but even in microbes the use of protons to generate movement of a flagella is not typically either physics or chemistry, but some grey area that’s basically nature in action.