hyebeh

i don't know how you would test this... unless you had access to some proper equipment... maybe do something with a radioactive tracker and a centrifuge?

Simply said, Chatha, if you really think something is wrong, fix it. Don't sit on your ass and use this forum (where people actually want to have a real, intelligent conversation) as your stump to shout from. If you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem. In essence, shut up and get educated.

"theory" in science is much different than "theory" in normal everyday terms. A scientific theory indicates that the idea has lots of supporting evidence to back it up. It's in every science book; common misconception.s

Throughout history, it's women, not men, who have been seen as expendable. Up till recently, if a woman died, the man would simply take a new wife and move on while a widow taking a new wife was taboo. Furhermore, the whole tradition of dowry arose as a payment from the wife's father to the husband as a sort of payment for the husband taking care of the woman. In most cultures, boys and men are valued infinitely higher than women because they pass on the bloodline and the family name. True, you can argue that because men are sent of to war and used to defend the family, that they are of less "value," but the point is that men are valued because they can protect the family.

Um, technically, women are better at endurance because a higher percentage of their total body mass is fat, thus providing them with additional stores of energy, explaining why women are able to excel in extreme endurance sports (ultramarathons).

from what I can gather, malnutrition and starvation cause the osmolarity of your body cells to change, resulting in swelling of the abdomen (like in those poor starving african children). Most likely, eating a lot of food at one time would affect the osmolarity of your body and throw something out of whack. I did a quick google search and it came up with nothing.

i don't understand.

yeah, with today's mixing pot of cultures and ethnicities, you would be hard pressed to find any virus that wouldn't affect someone in the united states. the united states has practically every ethnicity in the world represented.

what i'm saying is that we can continue to alter the environment to serve our needs and with that ability we should (in theory) never drive ourselves to extinction. by realizing what we are doing, we have the power to stop and to fix what we did incorrectly because we have the ability to realize and correct our errors.

the amount of water you need to drink depends on your metabolism and your diet (different foods contain different amounts of water). on a side note, some animals don't need to drink water; they derive all their water from metabolic water.

I also think that we should seek to destroy HIV at its source through more widespread education about STD's in general. If we can stop the spread, we help prevent further mutations as well.

holy hell... this is not even close to within the scope of modern science, our manipulation of virii is poor at best. the manipulation of viral DNA that we do today is the equivalent of closing your eyes and pointing and hoping it works. trying to combine AIDS and ebola and various other viruses would be next to impossible (and quite expensive) also... this entire thing has deep seated ethical problems (mind control, enslaving??? this is like the bloody nazi regime)

i think this entire article is ridiculous. intelligent plants? they don't even have nervous systems... i don't even know where to start arguing against this

in response to the original question, no, environmental damage will not destroy life entirely. At the rate which environmental damage is occuring, there is time for organisms to evolve and to adapt to changing conditions. Throughout history, mass extinctions have occurred but life has endured. Furthermore, humans will not die because of environmental damage. We are altering our environment to benefit us, making us more fit and likely to survive. humans are largely indepedent of other species on this planet (except for species that provide antibiotics, but even that will eventually be replaced by synthetic protein creation). For example, we have the ability to grow all of our food and the ability to change the environment so that it is suitable for human life.

life probably began as a string of nucleotides (mRNA most likely) that was encapsuled inside a ball of lipids (phospholipid membrane?) There is a name for these spherical bodies of lipids but I don't know the name off the top of my head.

there were a series of experiments where scientists produced organic molecules from inorganic molecules through a apparatus that simulated conditions on the early earth. There is no definitive "first" life form because there is a fine line between living and nonliving and there are no remaining fossils from that long ago. (The lack of fossils is not proof of spontaneous formation as proposed by strict creationists because any study of the process of fossilization will indicate that it is practically impossible for any fossils to remain of such a "life" form.)

i think gene therapy is still the best: stopping the problem at the source instead of trying to patch holes.

this puzzle is supposedly designed to show how smart you are. the smatter you are, the longer it will take you to solve it (it took me quite a while )

sounds almost as incredulous as zombies... if this marker does exist, then its discoverers will most definitely win a noble peace prize.

i'm hoping that HIV gets more infectious and wipes it self out, bubonic plague style. either that or it goes out with a whimper like in Andromeda Strain. I am doubtful that science will ever defeat it because it is amazingly adaptive and slippery.