vincentfromyay

I am aware that the nervous system is involved in, for example, muscular contraction, and that muscle tissue is basically lots of muscle cells 'glued' (?) together by whatever it is that glues them together, but I'm guessing that the neurons involved are attached to the outer membrane of the outermost cells of the particular muscle (?) rather than the neurons actually affecting the inner working of the cells (?). if this is the case, and the nervous system isn't involved in 'directing' any 'inner cellular processes' are the inner workings of the cell essentially no different than other everyday inorganic chemistry that takes place in the universe in that it is completely deterministic?

what is the relationship between the human nervous system and the processes that take place inside each human cell? the somatic nervous system is 'responsible' for voluntary actions, such as walking and talking. the autonomic nervous system is 'responsible' for involuntary actions, such as breathing and digesting food. but what of the cellular processes, such as putting together amino acids from the genetic code, or the recombination that takes place during meiosis? or the basic processes of mitosis? does the nervous system have anything to do with such cellular processes?

“Many scientists are convinced that cells containing such a complex code and such intricate chemistry could never have come into being by pure, undirected chemistry.” How many scientists (approx.) are convinced of this? And how many are not convinced of this? “The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes...” Are all two thousand required for the very simplest life form? “Evolutionist Michael Denton: ‘The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle.’” I just saw a book by Michael Denton being promoted on a Duane Gish (Institute for Creationist Research) video on YOutube, and have since read on wikipedia that he is now a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, and is not an evolutionist but a proponent of Intelligent Design. Also, as far as I’m aware, the idea that the cell was “thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event” is not a theory taken serious by any proponent of abigenesis (i think that is what is known as a strawman argument). “Many, if not most, origin-of-life researchers now agree with Hoyle.” How many agree with Hoyle? And how many don’t agree with him? “Most Creationists believe this is doomed to failure, since it contradicts the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.” Could you explain why this contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

for example, when galileo (or whoever it was) first proposed that bodies will fall at the same rate in a vacuum regardless of mass, how many times did this have to be tested before it became accepted? (also, is the above example a law?) (and is it true that Aristotle had said the more massive object will fall faster than the less massive object?)

thanks iNow, i enjoyed that. but i'm still no nearer having my question answered regarding mutations. what is required for going from no eye to the most basic eye in terms of mutation? if an eyeless progentitor has zero genetic info for an eye, how much mutation is required for its progeny to have a basic eye?

thanks pantaz. thanks ophiolite. so, photoreceptor proteins..? even more basic than an actual light-sensitive cell. any thoughts on the mutation question? could a species have gone from having no 'eye' whatsoever to having something like photoreceptor proteins in one generation?

ah. thanks. do you know which organism then has the most 'basic eye'? and do you have any thoughts on my other questions?

1. is there a theory (or is it known) as to what constitutes the most basic 'eye' in our evolutionary history? is it a single light sensitive cell for example? or something even more basic than that? or is there only speculation on the matter? 2. am i correct in believing that for this 'basic eye' to have appeared on the scene the following must have taken place; an organism with no 'eye' whatsover must have 'given birth' to an organism with the 'basic eye'? 3. if the above is correct, then am i correct in believing that this process must have involved only one mutation? and if so, is that plausible? or is it knowable? demonstrable? thanks. and please bear with my ignorance as i have no formal education in biology (but i am keen to learn).

...generation to the next? i understand, in principle at least, how the eye might have evolved from something that very slightly resembled an eye, such as a tiny light sensitive area on a single-celled organism; but i'm struggling to imagine how the said organism could have gone from having no eye at all to having the 'proto-eye' in the first place. i believe that this came about due to random genetic mutation; but am i right in thinking it came about in just one generation? isn't the 'proto-eye', the tiny light sensitive area (or whatever the proto-eye may be) itself vastly complex, relatively speaking? and isn't it a lot to believe that this could come about due to the mutation or mutations occuring as the result of one organism "giving birth" to another (if even this early process was the result of lots of mutation over lots of generations, then the first mutation/s would have to be advantageous, so i'm guessin that this first mutation/s is considered as the one/s that led to the 'proto-eye', yeah?) i haven't studied biology formally, so please bear with any glaring errors here. thanks.

Which body/organisation was responsible for giving the go-ahead to drug companies for a new drug in the UK back in 1998? Which body is responsible now? And what is the criteria for a new drug being allowed on the market? I'm particularly interested in fluoxetine

@PhDwannabe; myquestion is, are there examples of a lack of a neurotransmitter, say,serotonin, causing a problem for someone with depression. Eg, could it bedemonstrated that a depressed person’s inability, or difficulty, in say,getting up out of bed, was due to the electrochemical signal not crossing therelavant synapses due to there not being enough serotonin, or due to theavailable serotonin not being available in the synapse for long enough? Also in relation to ssri’s not shown to have much moreeffect than placebo; the wiki page on FLUOXETINE says otherwise @herbread; you said, “...serotonin levels... tendto be lower in people with depression...” is there evidence for this?

how does the decision to get up out of bed lead us to actually getting up out of bed?

i'm particularly interested in serotonin, but also in dopamine and norepinephrine

i've read them described as both. what i want to try to understand is, is the proton and electron simply an electrical charge, nothing more? or, are they things in their own right, which have an electrical charge? to use ananalogy. peter can have a cardboard sign with a plus sign written on it. he can give the sign away and still continue to exist himself. he is not an electrical charge; he HAS anelectrical charge (well, a sign with a plus sign written on it). likewise for electrons. if eddie has a sign with a minus sign on it he can give it away and still exist; is this the case for electrons?

i'm talking about incest between close relatives, eg, father/daughter, mother/son, brother/sister if it doesn't necessarily lead to birth defects, then what is the probability of it leading to defects? i don't have a degree or any other qualification in biology so if you can answer this can you put it in simple language please. thanks