Sirtuin3

I share the same sentiments, and when reading this, I feel a faint reminiscence of Biocentrism.. or perhaps your ideas struck the same chord as Biocentrism, but opposite? Biocentrism asserts that the objective universe bound by the laws of physics, and life being bound by the laws of chemistry- are relative to and are direct products of biological phenomena from organisms, such as ourselves, namely our neural processes. Basically, biology before chemistry and physics. "We are no better than the universe, nor worse, nor 'other than' the universe, by all evidence".. with the assumption that the universe indeed functions as a --conscious entity-as we as organic beings do-- it's like an upgraded Biocentrism where the actual matter within the universe, not necessarily biological in nature, possesses some form of consciousness/spirit. And it is sort of opposite in the sense that while Biocentrism asserts that our perceivable universe is a direct construct of our organic conscience, the script is flipped when you say that the universe itself, has it's own conscience and that we are merely a part of that conscience, or even a mere product of it. Thanks for sharing your view. I also agree with the idea that what laypersons call "God", experts who probe around the edges of our objective understanding, attempting to define scientifically "life and spirit", may call it "reality" or what have you, BUT--> I'd venture to say that it is unlikely that they wouldn't be struck with the same sense of "Awe" and wonder that those who believe in a God experience. When all is said and done, sometimes I wonder: Are we ultimately just arguing about names? What to call this reality, based upon our level of technical understanding? EDIT: @ Iggy - I believe the topic of Biocentrism, at some level, addresses the inquiry of "can you mix science with God"?

Science does not inherently refute the existence of a creator, it just acknowledges what is known, currently. Now, if some breakthrough happens with regards to uniting (or redefining) divine revelation as objective scientific phenomena, whether within a few weeks or a millenium, the conceptual "yard stick" to what many consider "divine revelation" might just be moved a few yards forward. As Dr. Kaku put it in a debate that included the likes of Dawkings and Craig, "A hundred years from now, guess what? We'll be arguing over the same thing"- during his assertion that string theory was what he believed, to be the be-all end-all of the argument.

Hello all, I hope this is appropriate as a new topic as I *briefly, yet thoroughly scanned this forum for a similar topic to no avail. I am submitting an application for a MS Biochemistry program, and am wondering what the most appropriate elements are to include in such a statement. For those who are currently in a graduate program/ work in research, what do you think are essential elements in a statement? For the program, there is an academic tract and a thesis tract.. in brainstorming on a blank MS word document, so far I have: ---------------------- Introduction/ basic educational background/ intent to pursue either academic OR thesis tract Example of most involved lab experiences in undergrad Personal motivation to contribute to science Ability possessed to do it Especially interested in knowing Metabolic map well, demonstrate understanding of it as the basis for medicine 2011 PSBMB conference attended, interesting paper observations Fact that I always stay up to date research interests speculative paragraph about biochem/tech implications for future my own future.. academic medicine ------------------------ Thanks for any/all input guys! cheers