jimmydasaint

Just two questions please to clarify what you guys are saying: 1. What do you mean by induction, 2. When is any initial hypothesis free of value ascribed to it by the 'hypothesiser'? Thanks

Nice discovery. Foxp2 maybe a 'master' gene that controls a host of others in humans. You are very unlikely to get transgenic::Fox P2 mice asking for 'cheese please' in a squeaky voice though other animals probably don't have the genes that are needed for control by Foxp2. However, I would still wait to see how many 'master' genes are needed for speech development. I would find it unlikely that speech is only dependent on one gene.

It looks like there has been a breakthrough in Alzheimer's Disease treatment. For those of you who don't know, it appears that most forms of dementia, where mature people have problems with thinking or memory. There seems to be a continuum of symptoms. In America, it affects the quality of life of 5.3 million Americans and also has a problematic effect on the families of the people diagnosed with the disease. Fans of the Sopranos series will recall the effect of Alzheimer's Disease on Corrado John Soprano Jr, where his dementia was made more poignant as his confusion about the past and present became more and more apparent. However, a mouse model for Alzheimer's seems to have now made significant progress. After reading the following, do you agree? http://www.ivanhoe.com/channels/p_channelstory.cfm?storyid=21416 http://www.alz.org/alzheimers_disease_what_is_alzheimers.asp

I would like to offer an unreserved apology to anyone called: Dick Burn Gerald Fitzpatrick Patrick Fitzgerald or Ivana Rogering If you ARE called Ivana Rogering, what sort of life have you led?

Some info here man. You need to get back to basics then build on it by looking at 'Materials and Methods' sections of papers and then look at the techniques for mice that are genetically homogeneous for any given MHC serotype. I would look here for basic theory: http://pathmicro.med.sc.edu/ghaffar/mhc2000.htm Then look at the M & M section of this type of paper for practical techniques Paper Hope these help

Dick Burn from 'Father Ted' Gerald Fitzpatrick Patrick Fitzgerald Ivana Rogering

Sh3lock, it has been apparently suggested that fission reactions occur in the inner core to release energy. This is what made me wonder about the nature of the solids in the inner core. They are, perhaps, not the iron and nickel we are used to, on the crust of the Earth. Thank you to all those who posted here. To summarise, the nature of the inside of the Earth and the composition of the core are educated guesses and I will go along with what has been said by people far more knowledgeable than me. However, reading the wiki confuses me. The Outer, liquid core experiences huge pressures, similar to those experienced by the core, yet remains a liquid. This is confusing to me. Also, where does the heat come from for the inner core? Partially from the sun? Or from fission reactions in the core?

Thank you for that Sisyphus. So these are educated guesses. I take it that the idea of a nickel-iron alloy is also an educated guess then?

I take the points above on board. However, I was merely suggesting that the way we produce chemical mediators of what we call happiness may be inherited. So, if your mother's moods during pregnancy affect 'master' gene switches in her eggs, depending on the chemicals her body makes as a result of her environment during pregnancy. Some may be switched in the 'On' position and some in the 'Off' position, thereby causing a predisposition in the newborn child (neonate) to happiness. So it doesn't come down to: the quote in 'Waterboy' where Adam Sandler says: - or does it?

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/06/02/chimpanzee-tool-kit-02.html Whilst this is possible, tool building seems to be dependent upon the specific environment - honey-building tools in the Gabon and specific termite tools in other regions. I think this is a means of transmission of specific memes. I do take your point about the ability to be spatially aware and interact with others. However, is this the development of a 'proto faith' or is it a development of a culture, similar to those in Cetaceans? I found this interesting article (and have only read the Abstract) but it seems to posit (not surprisingly) independent evolution of cultures in Cetaceans. http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=/BBS/BBS24_02/S0140525X0100396Xa.pdf&code=7be3e1176ad071f7417e3dfa463249ff I can imagine the equivalent of a dolphin with a Scouser (Liverpool) accent meeting other dolphins

Is it proven to be a solid with 'solid' arguments or are these speculations? Can we recreate the conditions on the surface and still have a solid? Thanks for the responses above.

The structure of the Earth can be split into various layers as follows, shown at the foot of the page. However, it has been suggested that the temperature of the inner core is made of 'an iron-nickel' alloy with the temperature of the Sun's surface. Two questions arise in my mind: 1. Why is is still solid at temperatures in excess of the melting point of iron and nickel? 2. If it is indeed a solid, what kind of solid can it possibly be? Is it like the solids we experience at the Earth's surface, or does it have unknown and exciting properties? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_core

You are far better qualified in the matter than I am friend. I understand the point but I was just picking out the important cognitive faculties which would enable species to be born with certain inferences or a knowledge of causality. This can then enable observational or molecular genetic studies to look for key molecules that mediate these responses. Moreover, my main purpose was to state that if non-human primates are capable of expressing wonder and awe, then, IMHO, these are traits which are indicators of a ‘proto –faith’ if you will. I recall vaguely some story about chimps dancing in apparent awe at the first sight of a waterfall. What a beautiful story, if it were true. I would also surmise that the parts of the brain which cause wonder and awe in chimps can be subjected to examination. You could then examine developments of these parts of the brain and perform knockout studies etc… I suppose the only answer I can come up with is a bit lame but it involves engaging the chimps in a 4-D simulator and examining which areas of the brain ‘light up’ with brain scans. I don’t know if this is feasible in real life. I like those honest opinions. I would think, IMO, that non-human primates would share a similar experience but would be 'one step away' from humans; hence the point above about wonder and awe. Good vision, I see no reason why I cannot agree with that. It would be fascinating if other animals hold strong beliefs or thoughts about their identity, or even thoughts about higher forces. I wonder if cats bring home offerings of the occasional ragged mouse or rat as a sacrificial offering…

I think the name of the person who made the post 'lildirtworm' and the title: 'The solution to diseases' is a cheeky piece of writing meant as a hoax. I am trying to figure out if it is meant to be written from the perspective of a lil worm or makes any scientific sense at all. I don't see any sense in it.

I think this technology 'mops up' carbon dioxide from the power station then releases the gas from the amines and the liquefied CO2 is transported to the North Sea to be disposed of/buried. Still seems a bit costly in terms of energy. Link to video below: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8074177.stm Comments appreciated.

Do you refer to this? http://www-saps.plantsci.cam.ac.uk/records/rec452.htm Or to this for syncitial organisms? http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1093/icb/43.1.19?journalCode=icbi And you cannot see how multicellular organisms arose from these forms. Would that be what you are trying to state granpa? Or am I just being obtuse ?

iNow, sorry to get back to this thread so late. I have been trying to prioritise my schedule and had to let this really interesting thread drop. I am not discussing questions of faith with you because these are outside the realm of this Forum. I would like your input on a couple of matters though, which are probably relevant to a selectionist framework. From your OP onwards, it seems that inference is central to the development of belief in the supernatural. As one of the articles suggested (and I am paraphrasing here), those creatures who infer the movement of a blade of grass as a predator have a built-in system to avoid being eaten. However, inference is just a form of logical deduction: blade of grass --> could be predator..---> run. Therefore, would it be reasonable to assume that these creatures have a system of logic already in situ as a central part of their neurocognitive architecture? If so, there must be cases in the animal Kingdom , where there are correlates of this type of deduction. Large apes would be excellent subjects for research in this case. I just wondered how good their inference powers would be so scientists good work out a 'threshold' of inference making that would lead to increased survival rates or to point out a predisposition towards the natural or supernatural forces. Do large apes feel awe, helplessness, transcendent joy? Are their scientific methods to show these beliefs? Or are there methods to detect parts of the brain that 'light up' when humans feel these emotions? IMO, in short, if inference systems are central to the evolution of belief of the supernatural, then other animals may have similar adaptations and scientists should be able to study them. There was also a relevant point mentioned about Social Intelligence as a method of ensuring survival. However, the development, or evolution, of a social system with its concomitant social cooperation is central to the survival of a group. What are the mechanisms that encourage a group to form? In my opinion, development of a reasonably robust communication system would have to precede the survival of a group. Otherwise, in the cold light of survival, it should be every man for himself. If it is true that oxytocin plays a role in mother-infant bonding, and vasopressin receptors determine mate fidelity, then those mechanisms would also, IMO, have to be in place before we start talking about the mechanisms for group survival. I loved the section about memes and the rise of cultural norms. I have heard about cultures arising in killer whales, for example, where some families will not eat humans and others, with a separate culture, will happily eat anything of the correct size, including humans. I guess this is the method for transmission of important information in birds being able to pierce open bottle tops from milk bottles to drink the milk. Technically this information should be able to spread quite easily in a localised species of birds by communication then possibly to other bird species by imitation of a successful strategy. However, even this survival of memes (IMO) requires a certain developed mind to be in place and also seems to depend on a fairly sophisticated cognitive architecture in place. It also depends on a deductive faculty. Milk in bottle --> top protects it--->pierce top ---> milk free to drink. I also enjoyed the part of causality and how humans tend to over-read causality even from infancy. This seems to be built into the human brain and even attributing a type of causality to an external agent is also a form of deduction. In short, IMHO, inference, group survival and recognition/explanation of causality all seem to boil down to logical deduction. Humans seem to be born scientists. The thing is, how many other creatures also use deductive cognitive mechanisms? Finally, just to cut my post short, Torquemada, the Crusades and religious persecution provide the worst sort of marketing for religion. Satan worship would seem to be the best sort of religion, allowing complete freedom for acquiring power, maintaining power and for allowing full vent to all human freedom. Yet monotheism still maintains a hold on societies worldwide forcing them to be altruistic and charitable in situations where survival is paramount, but the means for it are a bit shaky. Great thread, which deserves more attention.

This is off topic, and I apologise to the Mods in advance. However, whilst looking up proprioreceptors from bascule's post I found this interesting little effect, called the Pinocchio Illusion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinocchio_illusion Back to the OP. It seems as if there are gravity receptors in humans, located in the trunk and seem to be discovered by tilting the subject at various angles from the horizontal, in a centrifuge. To the best of my understanding, 'normal' subjects tilted the centrifuge until they felt horizontal. Paraplegic subjects showed a different idea of being horizontal. It also seems to indicate that the kidneys (and possibly other surrounding organs) serve to act as gravity receptors, and that nephrectomy (removing kidneys) affects the gravity response.

Finally, I found something: (emphasis placed there by jimmy) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T4T-3VXH4TG-3&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=9c75780e70abd2cc0169934602605087 This suggests from experimental data that there may be gravity receptors in the trunk of humans. I will read more about this but this is amazing stuff, if it is true.

Thanks for that Mokele. I had read about some Italian researcher who was investigating gravity receptors in humans but I can't trace the reference. Also, how does alcohol upset the inner ear receptors? I'll continue searching...

Incredibly detailed view i-Now. Well done for the research. However, I would have thought that absolute selfishness would be the factor that would ensure survival of the genes/organisms. However, we find altruistic individuals in most societies who seem to be motivated by no substantial reward. Moreover, the 'evolution', or otherwise, of monotheism is quite mysterious to me, because I would have anticipated a wide scale animistic or shamanistic belief. Yet, here we are, most of the world favour monotheism. Also, I have found the evolution of a language to be also mysterious. Is there a scientific consensus to the reason for a language with its semantic and syntactic complexities? Most of my bottom set students seem to communicate quite happily with grunts and physical violence to each other. Why evolve a language that is not only expressive but also self referential? Your thread is excellent but I will need another day or two to follow the links. Interesting stuff!

I have read about gravitropism in plants which http://www.plantphysiol.org/cgi/content/short/120/2/343 I then wondered if humans also had gravity receptors for movement of muscles or to maintain an upright posture? I presume that the gravity receptor function of the inner ear is upset by heavy drinking, affecting the balance. However, are there receptors for gravity on other parts of the human body and are they upset by alcohol intake?

But if you read the link, it suggests that gene expression can be changed in germ cells by the stresses of the mother. I don't know if I believe it but I don't think this is pseudoscience (yet!).

I have just seen Waterboy with Adam Sandler for the umpteenth time especially the famous scene with the Col. Sanders lookalike professor where the Waterboy is ridiculed for references to his Mama's sayings. Then I read this and wondered if he wasn't correct all along: Can Happiness Be Inherited? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090514101937.htm So, apart from the mechanical forces on the cells changing gene expressions (tensegrity) happiness also passes on genetically from Mama to you... how many people believe this?