Jens

From my point of view it is fair to state that DNA is a form of code. But point 2 is simply false. There are at least two known cases (A + B): A) Evolution is exactly a way of how codes with certain function can evolve without a mind designing it. It is just our brain which is optimized for seeing an intent behind everyhting which moves (like accusing the god Thor for creating the thunder -- which nobody today claims to be true any more, but which was accepted public opinion in the past.). Simply because evolution is slow and you cannot see it with your eyes, does no mean it does not exist. (Look in the evolution forum for more details.) B) The human immuno system: For better understanding I simplify here the well known process (but without changing the essential part of it for this discussion -- so the immunology experts please forgive me): Antibodies are proteins coded by a piece of DNA in specific human cells of the immuno system. Every antibody producing cell is producing just one type of antibody and not a mixture. If your are infected, the body is producing (after around 2 weeks) an enormous amount of antibodies, which are perfectly "designed" to bind exactly to the bacteria/virus you are infected with (which was of course unknown at time of your birth). There are in principle nearly endless amount of different antibodies possible, which all are coded by a specific piece of DNA. All those variants are much more than you can store within the DNA you had in the ovule (human egg cell). Which mind has "designed" the DNA which is coding for those antibodies then? The answer is: there was no mind designing it: - B1 random production: The body is simply producing many millions of different cells with many millions of different random DNA in some parts of the antibody DNA (by combining pieces in random combinations) - B2 selection: The body is killing those cells which produce antibodies against human cells. - B3 selection: Out of the rest only those a triggered for strong proliferation which actually interact with something (which then must be alien and is considered as hostile) - B4 proliferation: The proliferation takes about two weeks (and some of those cells survive in quiet state after this infection so the next time the bacterium/virus is coming back the body will hit much quicker. This is why you do not get this desease again.) Evolution works in a similar way. (B1: You have mutation instead of random production. B2+3: Only one phase of selection and B4: reproduction instead of proliferation.) DNA code which looks like designed is created in your body every day, without a mind designing the "correct" antibodies. Hope this helps in your discussions.....

Thanks. Surprising! In German or French TV such a thing would rather be presented as a satire. Good satire always is a bit too much than reality but has a very solid hidden center of truth in it. ... and fundamentalists of all kinds hate satire (means you hit them as hard with satire as by claiming you really mean it). It is very dangerous for fundementalists if people start to laugh. And there are a lot of reasons to laugh. I stick to my variant of it . In case they get the power it would be closer to the situation in Iran, where the well established conservative families (the priests are also often big land owners) use religion to keep their power. The Taliban have a more revolutionist tendency.

As a european it scares me that they can still be succesful despite (or even because of) those statements made in public. Not talking about republicans in general but specificly about those you have shown above: If those stupid (that is not the issue) and selfconfident (the combination is the problem) or manipulating (the one is as bad as the other) people ever obtain the majority and the power, it will end up like in Iran (actually they had a democracy there before the Shah). This is why it is so important that you (especially those with the thousands of posts: Moontanman, swansont, iNow, John Cuthber, ydoaPs, Phi for all, imatfaal and all the others...) invested and still invest so much of your time and try to help at least the community of readers here to understand science better (hopefully beeing multiplicators): - Answering even stupid questions helps - Bringing the discussions out of the closed shop of scientific papers in which you have to pay 20$ per article for reading, if you are not part of the closed community A political take on it: Partially the issue is also that it is so easy for religous fundamentalists to catch hearts and votes, because the economic money-driven society (which invents funny terms like "human capital") gives a lot of people the feeling to be loosers (or actually really considers them as loosers). We are getting used to things which are actually weird. Just imagine you live not in an anonymous society of several millions but in a small society of lets say 50 people. Who would ever consider in a small group that 10% of them are not doing anything helpful for the group simply because others can do it better? (and even if they ask for work they are excluded?). I am not a dreamer and of course there is no simple solution and the issue is always on both sides. I just want to point out that our big anonymous societies do not behave like the small teams humans are made for (sorry, I mean: have evolved in ). Science alone will not solve the issue. {sorry for the probably wrong conjunctive mood. I am not native speaker and hated foreign languages at school }

Hello Moontanman. Thanks for providing more references. (I really mean it. Let's not make a believe-battle out of it I did not want to attack you in any way. I just hated a bit the show part of the video.). However, the first reference points to a text which explains even less than the video. The main reference I cannot find in google scholar: Do you have more info on: "Morowitz H.& Smith E., Santa Fe Institute Working Paper, (2006)" Or is the second link you have provided intended to replace this non-existent reference? Here some of the huge amount of articles published by Wächtershäuser, who is in favor of a systematic start of life and who really tries it the hard way (he has not convinced me at all, but you might find it interesting): 1. Wächtershäuser G (1990) Evolution of the first metabolic cycles. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 87: 200-204. http://www.pnas.org/content/87/1/200.short 2. Wächtershäuser G (2000) Life as We Don't Know It. Science 289: 1307-1308. http://ajdubre.tripod.com/Sci-Read-0/y-OriginLife-82500/OriginLifeSci-82500.html 3. Wächtershäuser G (2006) From volcanic origins of chemoautotrophic life to Bacteria, Archaea and Eukarya. Phil Trans R Soc B 361, 1787-1808. http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/361/1474/1787.full doi:10.1098/rstb.2006.1904 4. Wächtershäuser G (1994) Life in a ligand sphere. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 91: 4283-4287. http://www.pnas.org/content/91/10/4283.short I will try my way through the second reference you have provided the next weekend....

Back to the original topic: I think, Nobel intended to the price to individuals, so that they can live financially independent or at least more independent (this is why it should only be given to persons still living). So personally I prefer, if the price is given to individuals (and even if it is 3 of them). Maybe it is a question of age, but having the long term view, there are some reasons for devoting the price to the EU. I am living in the EU (in the continental part -- not in the UK) My both grandfathers died in 2nd world war and in the generation of my parents and the parents of my wife relationships to foreigners were much rare than they are today. The EU has done a lot of things, which slowly change the state of mind of the population (not obvious for those already born into this situation -- its a slow process -- like evolution ): - Free travel across EU borders without controls. - One currency for a part of it. - Exchange programms and pressing the countries to make their university frameworks in a way that you can change from country to country. --> The time I was studying for a french student leaving France for a study at an european university or well respected research institute for his/her career was the same like going surfing for a year: a lost year --> My wife is from another european country than I am. I met here in such a program - doing a lot of small things to bring people together like pressing for lower phone rates, better bank transfer, .... ...and last and probably most important: The EU is economically so attractive that many surrounding countries did a lot of changes towards democracy and peace -- sometimes only because the politicians of those country realized that their population want to become a part of this union and this is still going on (you can even see cars with serbian license plates in croatia.)

I fully agree. O2 is a very reactive molecule that in contrast to N2 can only be maitained at a high level in the athmosphere, if there is a source producing it (and this source is not the hot vulcanos, it can only be life -- to our current knowledge) Just some further explanations: Even though on earth bacteria and archaea have evolved plenty other ways to live from inorganic compounds there is a good reason why on another planet life might also produce O2. If on this other planet like on earth the main carbon source is CO2, this means life forms must oxidize another inorganic substance to reduce CO2. The best way to get independent of this scare other substances (e.g. H2S) is to oxidize water, which is everywhere (since we assume life will only evlolve with water anyhow.). Oxidizing water means producing O2 out of water. This capability evolved on earth only late compared to other pathways (since it is rather tricky to do), but obviously it is a kind of natural optimum. So it is fair to assume that this can happen on another planet with a realistic probability, if there is is life on this planet already present. Since this extraterrestrial life does not necessarily have DNA, RNA or proteins (but equivalent macromolecules) and since already terrestrial life has a huge chemical variability on what it does to its environment, my quick answer is as follows: - make a photo/film to search for macroscopic life - make microscopic pictures of water and humid soil ...send the photos/films back to earth. (of course try it out in plenty different environments on earth first). On a chemical level life is probably easier to identify by its components than by its reactions with the environment (with the exception of oxygen production). So a very sensitive test looking for organic macromolecules in water-rich places (were they should not occur chemically) is also a direction to go. ...but others might have better ideas.....

I have written "most" of the plants. "Most" means more than 50%. You are right (and I knew already) that there are plenty of plants which have separate male and female individuals. (so I do not think we have a scientific issue, but rather an issue in reading) The scientific term of having male and female on separate individuals is "Dioecy". If you do not trust me, just have a look what wiki is telling about Dioecy (look at the last two sentences): Dioecy (Greek: "two households"; adjective form: dioecious) is characterised by a species having distinct male and female organisms.[1] This is opposed to hermaphroditic species, or more correctly: monoecious species, in which on one individual both male and female reproductive organs are present. The majority of animal species[2] are dioecious. The term is rarely used for animals and is most often used in plants. The majority of plant species are monoecious[citation needed] and hence have either bisexual flowers or they possess both male and female flowers on the same plant. Still, a significant number of plant species are dioecious. ....and talking about my "limited" garden is not really a topic for this conversation (I have more than 100 species and with a bit of work I can provide latin names for about 50% of them) The amazon molly is really interesting! Thanks for posting it.

The only plant in my garden which have male and female in seperate individuals is the kiwi plant. All others have both male and female organs on the same individual plant. So if you mean the existence of male or female organs, of course you are right. I meant having seperate male and female individuals. (I was not precise).

Bones actually did not start as bones. It started long before there were any animals on land. It started around 800 million years ago when all the different types of animals evolved. There was one type (the predecessor of the fishes, which were predecessors of the amphibia which were predecessors of mamals) which moved more quickly through the water by snake-like movements. Now I give you a hypothetical way of evolution just to illustrate the possibilities: A mutation had as effect that cells around a central axis produced more extracellular structure proteins so that a more rigid axis appeared. Those individuals could actually swim faster and were more successful. On the following generations additional mutations occured so that the cells of the central axis produced even more structure proteins. A next mutation lead to a copy of the structure protein gene, which did not change anything but even more structure protein. A next mutation lead to a situation that the copy was only active in the central axis cells. This specifically increased the structure protein in the central axis cells. This copy changed to become a protein which was much more rigid than the original protein (and let the fishes swim faster). Ultimativly this lead to an axis of cartilage. In some fishes (not in sharks for example) this axis evolved into something even more rigid -- the first bones. No. Partially yes: Anything can be created which can be done by proteins or RNA or by chemical substances which can be synthesized by proteins or RNA and which can be reached via intermediate states which are not deadly (lethal) to the organisms. (nuclear fusion for example is definitely out of reach, or metallic aluminium) There is no knowledge. The power lies in the proteins coded by the DNA, not in the DNA itself. The sequence of A T G C codes for 20 different amino acids. This means depending on the sequence of the A T G C a protein is produced in the cells that is a sequence of 20 different amino acids. Depending on this exact sequence the proteins form a precise 3D structure. This 3D structure determines which function a protein has. This function can be making a chemical reaction or forming chains to build stable structures (like in the cartilage mentioned above) or other things. No. There is no blueprint waiting to be expressed. Yes. Just take as example the immuno response which takes place in every human during his lifetime. This is no evolution in the strict sense, but it is a similar principle: How does the body know to fight against microbes, which did not even exist at time the human individual was born? How can a stupid system of chemicals in the human body distinguish between human cells to be preserved and microbes to be killed? Nobody is designing it. The answer is random production and selection. (I am now simplifying a bit:) During the early months of life cells with many millions of different antibodies are produced by randomly combining different DNA pieces into one gene (of course attached to a fix part, which ensures the antibody function). Each cell produces exactly one variant of antibody. Those cells are all not active yet. They all pass through the thymus. In the thymus there are specific cells which can activate the immuno cells. There are also cells which produce all of the surface proteins of human cells. Any immuno cell binds to one of those cells in the thymus is killed. Only those who do not bind are activated. hope that gives a first insight

We know a lot (on all the topics mentioned below) and a lot of things can be explained, but let me just try to summarize some of the issues. This might make the situation clearer: Splicing: Talking about the 1.5 % of DNA that codes: Since we know the genetic code (= how DNA translates into amino acids) we can predict how the protein will look like from a chemical standpoint (the sequence of amino acids). However, even this sometimes does not work out since in the nucleus the messengar RNA is rearranged by cutting out some pieces ("splicing"). To my knowledge this cannot be predicted correctly in cases were the remaining parts are small (since you cannot see the open reading frame without stop codons). But in general this is a minor issue. 3D Protein fold: Actually we cannot calculate the real 3D structure of proteins correctly. This is a huge issue, since all the catalytic or other function of a protein lies in its exact 3D structure and cannot be predicted by its sequence of amino acids. We are only getting there very slowly by creating huge databases of known structures. So if you have bad luck and the protein does not ressemble closely in amino acid sequence one with known 3D structure, you will not be able to predict it. This is why most structures are still determined by Xray cristallography. The issue with this is, that there is no systematic way to obtain crystals of proteins (might take years, or never work out). Protein primary function: For proteins not related to proteins with known functions there is no systematic way to find out what they are good for. It might take decades. For example it is known that the Nef protein of HIV is not needed in cell culture but is essential for the survival of HIV in humans. So in some way it is probably disturbing the human immuno response. However, even after 25 years of research in the whole world it is still not really clear what the Nef protein really is doing (even though there is some progress). The only way which is working is the other way round: If you can measure the function of a protein, you can purify it, sequence it and look for the corresponding DNA, clone it and produce it in large amounts for further research. So point 2 and 3 together mean, that we are not really able to read the language of life. If a protein with function B has evolved out of a protein with function A, we cannot systematically see that it has now altered the function. You have to measure it (and it is hard to measure, if you do not know what you should look for). Protein regulation: Nearly all proteins have in addition to their primary function also specific functionality to regulate the primary function (activate, inhibit). Our knowledge of these regulatory functionality is much less complete. And also here, you can never be sure that you have detected all of them (because there are often multiple). This is because we cannot predict correctly which smaller molecules will bind to a protein, even with a fairly good known 3D structure. long regulatory RNAs: The vast majority of the "junk DNA" is actually transcribed (at low copy number) to RNA. We only know very few examples how this works (e.g. inactivation of the second X chromosome in females). For most of the rest we have no detailed knowledge at all. It is fair to assume that per length there is not so much information in the non-coding DNA than in the coding DNA, but since it is far more than 95% of the DNA, you can assume that there might be as much information and function in it as in the coding DNA. Remember: the biggest enzyme of all -- the ribosome (catalyzing protein production) -- is actually a catalytic RNA, which is just surrounded by some helper proteins. We are not at all at the end of understanding what RNA actually does in the nucleus. Order in space in eukaryotes: Just a few months ago it was published that chromosomes in the nucleus actually have an order in space and form neighborhood patterns specific to the different human cell types. So it looks we are just starting to really understand what the nucleus is actually good for (take for example the puzzling fact that only cells with nucleus form complex multicellular life forms). Even if all points from 1-6 are solved, that does not mean that you automatically understand how the complex system of a cell works altogether. Even if all points from 1-7 are solved, that does not mean that you automatically understand how the complex system of a complete human body works together or how the human body is formed during embryogenesis. So in summary: There are still a lot of things to do. We cannot really read the language of life. And of course we are even more far away to speak the language of life (we cannot design a new catalytic functionality from scratch on a computer).

Actually the vast majority of species do not have separate male and female organisms. All bacteria, archaea, unicellular eukaryotes, fungi, most of the plants and even some of the animals.

I Agree. Actually bacteria have specific proteins with the purpose to exchange genes. That is the reason why it is more common in Bacteria. It is their replacement for sexual reproduction.

There is an additional issue: In contrast to low molecular antibiotics the human immuno system will consider the bacteriophages as dangerous viruses (in 100% of the individuals). So you can treat an individual at maximum once. The second time you will get a huge immuno response (which might actually be dangerous) and human antibodies will mark them for destruction by other cells.

If all your experiment is right, it might simply mean that you cannot influence the aluminium concentration in the fruit by supplying additional aluminium to the plant (since it is controlled by the organism, like most substances). I assume that by using the word "treated with aluminium" you mean supplying aluminium ions in watering the plants. Or hobby gardeners know that Hydrangea actually absorbe aluminium but only at very acidic pH in the soil.

pH 7.4 is typical pH within a cell. I doubt that any human enzyme which is supposed to act within a cell will be denatured at pH 7.5 (since this means it will partially denature already at usual pH level). Where did this information come from? wikipedia is stating that catalase pH Optimum varies by species from pH 4 to 11. (follow the reference -- no pH optimum given for gallus gallus -- chicken) If you do not have any different data, I would simply assume that the pH optimum of your enzyme is closer to 10 than to 7. Jens

I currently see the following explanation (see below). Any better ideas? Any major issues with the explanation? (of course this is at least partially speculation. I just want to get the most likely explanation -- not a proof ) Input: Recently it was published that the chromosomes in animals have a specific order in space in the nucleus. This means dependent on the cell type certain chromosomes always have the same neighbors within the nucleus. (Segmented nuclei obviously fix this order in a very drastic way.) Recently it was also published that actually the vast majority of the so called junk DNA is transcribed (but at low copy number, and of course not translated). Those long transcribed RNAs have shown to have regulatory effects in complex gene activation processes including timing effects (the length of the RNA matters and not so much which bases it contains, the distance in space also might matter in the same way). Malignant tumor cells often (typically?) have multiple chromosome disorders (split, fusion, parts of one chromosome moved to another, trisomy, …). So it looks that destroying this order in space actually matters. Neutrophil granulocytes are the most common white blood cells and kill microbes (bacteria, viruses and fungi). Neutrophil granulocytes act as macrophages and produce a lot of reactive oxygen species of multiple kinds, which all can diffuse through membranes and cause a lot of damage also to DNA. Neutrophil granulocytes do not divide any more after maturation. Patients with lack of segmented nuclei have a reduced immune response (and not more cancer). Explanation: The segmentation ensures that the natural needed order in space of the chromosomes is conserved, even though the high amount of reactive oxygen species causes a lot of covalent breaks and rearrangements of the DNA in active neutrophil granulocytes. The large fragments of DNA are trapped physically within the segment. This keeps the granulocytes longer function normally and thereby active in the immune response.

(I agree to what have been stated by Dmaisky, Arete and CharonY above) Darwin has based his concepts of evolution on animals and plants. Microbiology did not exist at this point in time. That there are occasionally more things than tiny mutations and selection (like cell mergers, horizontal gene transfer, hybridization) does not mean that anything is wrong with the findings before. Even Woese who is in favour of a predominant role of horizontal gene transfer in the phase before Bacteria, Archaea and Eukarya have been formed (this is in debate -- I personally do not share this view), also states that it is not the predominant way of evolution afterwards. The fact that for plants and animals (or better all multicellular Eukarya) clear trees can be obtained by analyzing the DNA for the ribosomal RNA definitely shows that there is a gradual evolution. Or in a more scientific way: If you analyze evolution trees of the complete genome for multicellular Eukarya you very rarely (if at all) have genes which show a clearly different tree (indicating horizontal gene transfer of any kind including species hybridization). So it is a clear exception. So we do not need to make a religious believe out of it (and we never should ). We can measure what happened in the past. If animals as different as dogs and cats never merged in the hundreds of millions years in the past, it is not a good assumption that this will happen in future (even if it definitely happend with microorganisms). And as soon as we actually find a case of real merge of complex multicellular species (in higher animals and plants) in the phylogenetic tree of a complete genome, I will change my mind (since it is not a religous believe ). This surely will be a nobel price.

You might have a look at priormat or other similar offers (I do not want to make an ad here. It is just to show what is existing. I have no personal relation with this company). For a very small amount of money and time, you can secure your intellectual property. ...and then still publish it here

Among the theories of how to start life two common ones are: a) RNA first b) metabolism first As a very simple summary you can say the main differences between the two are: a) has an issue how this first self-replicating system started. This seems very unlikely (even though there are tons of different proposals). However, afterwards everything is easily explained by evolution. --> so the first step is the issue. The second is easy. b) starts with something quite easy to imagine (a chemical metabolic cycle with a positive feedback loop). However, the issue here is who this ever can evolve and gain more complexity. --> so the first step is rather easy. The second is the issue. This means, if somebody (like in the video) actually is in favour of b), he should talk about the critical second step (Wächtershäuser did.). The video is a good example of convincing rhetoric: - you mention accepted people (in science it should be nobel laureates or something similar). - claim they did not have the complete picture (so not directly stating they were wrong but implying you are as clever as them) --> Warning: You should only use this strategy with dead people as otherwise you risk to get nailed in a hard discussion in the next symposium . Actually, my personal impression is that F. Crick had a much more complete picture than the speaker. - convince people by telling a lot of interesting but already very well known things. However, you can assume that for most people in the audience it is new information. - claim that there are no exceptions. This is always very convincing (at least outside scientist community). Actually the principle of one simple rule and no exception is very much what most religions do to convince people. - Make sure to show a lot of self-confidence and never the slightest hesitation. So even though I admire the rhetoric skills (which help very much to make science more interesting to a broader audience), I prefer, if people do not go into black/white style of arguments. Science needs more open discussion and it is not helpful to promote religion-like convictions. The metabolism-first theory is a fresh new way to approach the problem of start of life (to my knowledge mainly introduced by Wächtershäuser). You can learn a lot out of new approaches. Personally I do not share the metabolism-first theory (but that does not prevent me to state, that there are some good arguments in it).

I would try out to start with something else (e.g. gel filtration). Since your essay is sensitive, you can try mutliple different things with small amounts. If purifaction turns out to be very difficult and you can invest more time you might think about your activity test can give you hints to what your protein might bind more specifically.

That is right. A factor of 10 (e.g. between the concentration of ATP to the concentration of ADP) changes deltaG by -5.7 kJ/mol. [ATP] / [ADP] is typically 10 However, since the standard deltaG°' assumes 1 M and the hydrolysis of ATP has more products than educts that actual deltaG value is much bigger than the deltaG°' value: deltaG = deltaG°' + RT ln ( ( [ADP] [Pi] ) / [ATP] ) so [ADP] / [ATP] beeing 1/10 changes deltaG by -5.7 kJ/mol and [Pi] beeing more around 1 mM instead of 1 M changes deltaG by 3 * -5.7 kJ/mol = -17.1 kJ/mol This means the effect of the poor chosen standard (there are no chemicals at 1 M in cells) is bigger than the ATP/ADP ratio. So if we assume Pi to be about 4 mM you can say the actual deltaG (and hence the energy value) of ATP is -20 kJ/mol more than the standard deltaG. ----------------------------------------- For those who want to have all the details: Actually there are the same amount of educts (ATP and H2O) as products (ADP and phosphate), but all the standard deltaG values are calculated under the assumption of a fix H2O concentration (which is a good assumption). Actually you always have to divide by the standard concentration. So the formula is precisely: deltaG = deltaG°' + RT ln ( ( ( [ADP]/1M ) ( [Pi]/1M ) ) / ( [ATP]/1M ) ( [H2O]/55M ) )

In this video it is claimed all life is based on reverse citric cycle or citric cycle and all molecules are build up from this cycle. It is even stated explicitely that there are no (!) exections. All those statements are not true. Since you can read this in every microbiology text book, you can only assume that this is also known to the speaker of this video (but somehow hurts his story ). That is not just simplifying for the non-scientific audience, that is misleading. 1) Lets just take one exception: Cyanobacteria and Plants (which use chloroplasts, which are related to cyanobacteria) produce glucose out CO2 without any involvement of of a citric cycle or reverse citric cycle. So one of the biggest part of all the biomass on earth (if not the biggest one) -- the cellulose in the cell walls of plants and cyanobacteria is produced outside those cycles. 2) Another one: Fatty acid synthesis also works wihtout the citric cycle. 3) In Chloroflexus there is neither the citric cycle nor the reverse one but another way. ....there are more examples in my text book .... Just in general sugars can be converted into each other and their synthesis only very rarely has todo with the reverse citric cycle or with the citric cycle. There are plenty of other ways to produce energy, most of which are either around glycolysis or at membrane gradients, and both are also very old, since there are common principles in all organisms. But the bigger issue with the statements in this video are that there is not the slightest hint to explain how a metabolic cycle could actually evolve into something more complex (so he missed the whole point of life). Wächtershäuser tried this. His theories are definitely worth discussing (even though I do not share them). More on this the next days.....

Grape seed oil seems to have phenolic antioxidants: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308814608006870 http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf9806762 However, I do not have access to full content of these articles, and they do not compare it with other oils and with other antioxidants. Absorption of the phenolic antioxidants seems to be possible, because it had a anti DNA damaging effect in rats which were fed with it (but vitamin C had the same effect). Another study found a clearly positive effect at 3.7 g/kg (which means 222 g grapeseed oil daily if your weight is 60 kg) at the same level as 100 mg Vitamin E / kg (6000 mg per 60 kg) This is a lot, especially, if you consider that 300 mg of Vitamin E is already considered as starting point of overdose of vitamin E (and 10 mg as daily rate). This free article shows some issues with grape seed oil and dangerous (cancer provoking) substances included, because of and depending on the drying process: http://lib3.dss.go.th/fulltext/Journal/J.AOCS/J.AOCS/2000/no.12/v.77n12p1289-1292.pdf So without having access to most of the articles in detail, It still looks like: Yes. There is a positive effect. Yes. It can be aborbed. However, it is nothing special. You have to eat a lot and there are other means. --> is still looking to me like a way how to re-use (and do some marketing for) a waste product of wine production. But maybe somebody who has access to all the full articles can give more input.

2. but then you should take your definition 4, which is actually the very human centric one. 4. same comment. This is the completly human centric one (actually this is a bit thinking that plants are something in the environment like stones.) 5. thanks for the additional input. I see the point. Personally this is not what I am after when defining life. But that's a point of view question (as you have pointed out above.) So what I find as the most helpful definition of life is the one which fits to this forum (probably this is exactly why I am in this forum ): To distinguish between chemistry and the starting point of life in abiogenesis, to identify extraterrestrial life and last and most important: To put this gut feeling into more precise words which says that biological systems are fundamentally different from chemical ones with all their incredible features they have. So again, you are right it is a view point question. ...I will try to update my version... Updated version for a definition of life in mutliple statements, which all must be met. (Biological View) Life is a chemical system. (in contrast to artificial computer life) Life is able to reproduce itself (in contrast to most abiotic chemical systems) Life is able to gain and change properties and pass these changes in reproduction (in contrast to: crystals; simple chemical positive feedback loops; fire; prions) (including: cellular life forms; viruses; hypothethical early selfreproducing systems without cell membranes or without energy metabolism; extraterrestrial life forms not based on RNA or DNA) (comment: "gain" is necessary, because otherwise the complexity can not increase) These are the same prerequisites to start evolution (in darwinian sense). To include artificial life you simply leave the first statement out. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- However, this artificial life definition has the disadvantage, that there might be designed artificial life which is actually not reproducing itself or algorythms but somehow is learning and increasing complexity without using darwinian evolution. Personally I think this will limit this artificial "life" into the borders of the design. So also here I assume that the principle of random change and selection is needed to really gain the level of complextiy needed to be clearly stated as life. Since I am biology-minded, I personally could only accept using the word "life" for an artifical system, if it is either able to survive and reproduce in free nature without help of humans and evolve further or if it reaches near human intelligence (so somehow referring to dmaiski number 4 ). So after all for artificial life the number 3 from dmaiski is probably better (since it does not simply apply the biology view to computer science but is really an independent view on the problem): [3 from a technological point of view life is a sufficiently complex system that is capable of creating new, more complex systems, or improving upon itself, increasing its complexity]