jimmydasaint

I take the point i-a, but I still think there is room for podcasts which are mildly humorous and interesting and which can fulfil the specifications for criteria worldwide. For example something on cells which sticks in the mind and mnemonics etc... For homework, you can always refer to previous answers. Moreover, you can also have links to animated topics or topics of interest on other websites. The whole point is that Science is FUN and at the same time we are contributing to the science education of future citizens. This community can spread the word about science to thousands. I am sure of it. It should not restrict itself.

Please correct me if I am wrong here but I think that this Science Forum has huge potential for the GCSE Revision 'market' in the UK. Potentially thousands of school children can be switched on to this site to look for revision podcasts or animations which can excite their interest in science, and educate them as well. It would need some pretty hefty input from some of the solid contributors here, but the level of knowledge shown here is phenomenal (and this is coming from an ex-postdoc in Biology). The homework may have to be opened up for direct answers though. You are so good, but you can reach out to so many without compromising your standards. What about it guys...?

The ORBO claims to give off more energy than it takes in to a 3:1 ratio, using energy from interacting magnetic fields. This, to my mind, is classical pseudoscience, yet the CEO seems to be deluded to the point of a contestant in "Britain's Got Talent" or the "X-Factor". http://www.steorn.com/orbo/what/ A previous demonstration failed but the company continue to maintain that they have a clean energy source which can, one day, become a prime source for electrical cars etc... Your comments please... http://www.steorn.com/ http://community.zdnet.co.uk/blog/0,1000000567,10014630o-2000331777b,00.htm http://www.boingboing.net/2009/12/16/steorns-orbo-free-en.html Or is it just genius?

Mrsemm thank you for the greetings. However, I take pleasure in a bit of reflection at this point, in the company of my family. It's the quite that I value the most. Just to sit quietly and to listen to the excited chatter of the children and the oft-repeated stories of the older people and just to luxuriate in the atmosphere. That is what makes Christmas for me personally. Anyway, I have to contribute to the jokes and here is one that I like: http://www.awordinyoureye.com/jokes28thset.html

Congratulations ajb. You deserve the PhD. Some of your answers to my rather simple-minded questions have been highly impressive and admirable. Best wishes for the Christmas season and a one-hour viva demonstrates your superb talent. Enjoy the next few months.

Thanks for the reply guys, and Capn I empathise with you, I also had a pet cat that died on me and I wanted no other pet after it. However, I was considering diet as a major contributory factor to avoidance of cancer in 'wild' animals and as an important factor in human cancers. In short, animals do not tend to eat highly processed foods, and I then wondered if humans that cut out all processed foods would avoid problems with a metabolically screwed up diet?

I didn't know where to post this Thread but the main point is: Do animals get cancer in their natural habitats in fewer numbers than humans? If not, what are the factors that cause the decreased rate of cancer?

Just to return to the OP briefly, IMHO, I would suggest Natural Selection to be a Law of Nature. It can be expressed in mathematical terms but its rigorous theoretical reproducibility and aesthetic qualities can be found in natural events, for example in industrial melanism in B. betularia . It appears Earth-wide as a natural Law but its Universality remains to be proved. Natural Selection provided me with the impetus to suggest that it should be categorised as a Law and not merely as a theory. If, indeed, Laws are equations then it stays as a theory.

OK guys, so I take it that the order would be: Observation Hypothesis Theory? I reluctantly take the point that a Principle is an axiom but look at the definition: wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn However, because the OP was based on my own meandering thoughts, I looked up Wiki for a tighter definition and found the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_(disambiguation) which proves the point that, if you look hard enough, you can always find something to back up your hypothesis - or have I just invented a new theory?

Glycine seems to be found quite ubiquitously. ajb, I am quite interested in why we exclude Jupiter-sized planets from being able to contain life. What are the constraints that would exclude a larger extra-galactic planet from containing life of any sort?

I don't know if this initial post is clear but I will try to explain what I mean. Newton's Law of Gravity is presumably based on numerous observations and tests which led to the belief of a fundamental Law of Science. What are the steps to make a Law of Science? I am guessing the following: Observation Hypothesis (Tests for Reproducibility) Theory (Tests for Reproducibility, Falsification and Exceptions) Principle (e.g. the Anthropic Principle) Law However, I am a bit confused about the order of events and look for help here.

I remember reading Ulysses where there was a stream of consciousness very similar to that reported by dragoon. Great stuff! This could be made into a book. As to the love problems, Jerry Springer has taught me that the foundation of all relationships is trust and that trust must be given to be accepted. Respect has to be earned before it can be accepted and returned. In short, if you cannot trust her, do the kind thing and leave her. But always be honest. dethfire, the woman who eventually became my wife is completely artistic and right brain and I am a left-brained analytical sort of blokey bloke. We are almost complete opposites. What do we do? We compromise. I listen to everything she wants to say, and then try to analyse it. However I make sure that half the time, or more, I suppress my wishes and go along with her and she does the same when I insist on something. If she feels really strongly about an issue and starts to get emotional, I keep quiet. When I do the same, she reciprocates. There is no winning formula to human relationships but sheer common sense helps. Good luck, friend.

pioneer, people can correct me on this if I am wrong but, IMHO, the selfish gene theory says that only genes are important and the whole of evolution is to help genes 'survive'. So, humans, animals, bacteria etc... are not important, only the genes are important. If you are good at surviving as an organism then the genes also survive. This is what I meant by reproductive advantage. If you live and pass on your genes to your kids then the genes are also successful. I hope this makes sense.

pioneer, if you are saying that the environment is as important as genetics to the development of an individual, then I totally agree with you. However, the O.P. has to clarify their understanding of what is meant by selfish gene theory. I am referring to the sticky and quote the following: The individual is a 'robot' that carries and nurtures the information of the genes, and it is in the 'interest' of the genes to ensure survival by reproductive success. Intelligence provides a 'selective advantage' to the success of the survival of the genes..... hang on, is this a homework question? http://bovination.com/cbs/selfishGeneTheory.jsp

I just saw the film called The Core for the first time last week. Apart from being unintentionally hilarious as they dived into the depths of the Earth to kick start the core, it was actually quite exciting. If only we could do this and send our most photogenic scientists to the edges of the outer core... For those who want to know more: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0298814/plotsummary

I think I should clarify my reasons for the OP. You are right i-Now, this thread borders on the philosophical and seems to have digressed into pure philosophy. I did give a passing nod to the Anthropic Principle but my main point was to stress the mediocrity of life on Earth. The Mediocrity Principle can be paraphrased as saying that our planet is a mediocre planet in a mediocre Solar System in a mediocre Galaxy. There is really nothing special about us as life forms. The question arose in my mind that with the millions of possible planets in millions of Galaxies, life would arise under suitable conditions anywhere. No need for Panspermia. Further, if all life is destroyed on this planet by an atypical event, e.g. collision with a Near Earth Object, then life would arise again using new raw materials. Walkntune, please don't apologise - I should have been foresighted enough to sense the possibility of arguments between 'spiritualists' and materialist rationalists. I have read a smidgin of Bergson and about the elan vital. It appeals to me to believe that we have a collective consciousness but we are in a Forum that demands solid evidence instead of opinion. Hence my wish to post here in Speculations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_mediocrity

The Earth is in a happy place - not too far from the Sun and not too close so that temperatures are intolerable. We have an electromagnetic field, and an ozone layer which protect us like an umbrella from harmful electromagnetic radiation from the Sun. The planet is mostly a watery domain. We have recycling systems for water, carbon and nitrogen. To my mind, it seems inevitable that life would arise and spread on the Earth. Additionally, it seems inevitable that life will occur on other Earth-like planets with the same features as the Earth. There seems to be a cosmological program called LIFE v1.0 which is circulating around the Universe, and to my mind, life is inevitable. Do others agree?

bascule, buddy, you've missed the point entirely (to my surprise). The OP was discussing brains in small animals and an allusion was made to neural density and to body mass:brain size. I was making the point about my amazement with the overall neural density of a bee's brain. The article is about the possibility of bee consciousness but I quoted it as the only reasonable source from about 6 scholarly articles. The OP, and my intention was not to discuss neural density and the nature of consciousness in invertebrates. I am not knowledgeable enough to discuss the article, so I will agree with you. Ah, the Bayesian classification system again. Do you have any scholarly references which show overwhelming evidence that Bayesian logic is solely used by humans please? Now that we are thoroughly off topic, back to the OP. Is there a correlation with brain size and body mass. You seem to indicate, and it seems to be backed up that there is a correlation. The OP referred to the unusual intelligence of vertebrates.

I for one would not like to wait with my young and hungry family whilst some teenagers attempted to rap (badly) at the McDonald's clerk. These young whippersnappers need to find something more appropriate to do, like playing chicken with two vintage cars off a nearby cliff.

A very mature and balanced opinion there YdoaPs. I agree, the 'debate' would probably sink into the usual bad-tempered to-and-fro. But these have become more frequent in the past four weeks. All I am saying is that many of the new sfn members are likely to come from countries where faith means that they have to defend a Creationist point of view. For example, people from India are likely to be Hindu or Muslim. People from Arabian or North African nations are more likely to be Muslim or Christian. Those from South America are more likely to be Roman Catholic in origin. I am sure all approach their faiths in a unique way, but some will feel the need to preach from the pulpit to the collection of atheists here... I don't feel there is a need to attack religion in turn though - what happens is what we continue to see in Threads ranging from Evolution through to Psychology.

Having read with interest the numbers of threads, in the past few weeks, attempting to discuss religion through a circuitous route in a Science Forum, I think it would be extremely good sense to start a new forum for this debate. The Science Forum has grown substantially quite recently, with new members from all continents, many of them believers. Any new thread which hints at religion or Creationism can be easily diverted to such a Forum and avoid the type of emotionally draining debate which has dominated certain 'taboo' topics. Does this make sense?

An easy-to-read version here: http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/images/604gluconeogenesis.gif and then you can reads up in more detail from hundreds of excellent biochemistry sites.

I was also wondering about this recently and came across this: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=exploring-consciousness&page=2 This made me think about the relative neural density of insect/mammalian brains and led me to a new search. http://content.karger.com/produktedb/produkte.asp?typ=fulltext&file=BBE2007069003220

OK, to clarify completely, so silk fibroin, collagen and haemoglobin are all quaternary but have secondary motifs (e.g. portions with alpha helices etc...). If that is the case, thank you for the answer.

But...we have taught for many years in the UK, that collagen represents a secondary structure because its structural complexity does not go far beyond an alpha helix. We have also taught that silk fibroin is a secondary structure. However, are they secondary structures or heavy in particular structural motifs? Textbooks have not helped students in this regard. Please clarify Charon Y... http://www.biologymad.com/master.html?http://www.biologymad.com/biochemistry/biochemistry.htm