1

Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / Re: Will we lose our nails?

« on: 21/02/2012 17:10:14 »

I don't think, with human society at its current level, that having or not having fingernails would be a major influence on reproductive success... I reckon someone without fingernails could find a technical workround for opening packaging etc. by the time they reached adulthood (before which they've probably got parents to stop them starving) and whilst nail-less fingers might be a bit funny looking... lots of very funny looking people manage to reproduce (I mean, Boris Johnson's got 4 kids, apparently).
So I wouldn't think there's any very strong pressure to keep the nails. But I doubt that not having nails would be an advantage either...

2

Just Chat! / Re: Can an Infinite, Designer, Creator God be Brought Within the Realm of Science?

« on: 24/01/2012 19:08:44 »

Perhaps in the US the term "the establishment" is not as loaded with meaning as it is in the UK... I wouldn't know.

In the UK describing someone as part of "the establishment" suggests that they are comfortably ensconced in the current regime (probably doing reasonably well out of it financially), and suggests that they will oppose any change simply because they will be inconvenienced by it and not because they have in any way thought about it.

If you talk to a Brit about a particular opinion being "the establishment view" you're implying (and it will be assumed that you are deliberately implying) that it's an opinion which is held because it is the establishment view, without any intelligent thought. Bear in mind that few of us over here believe that we live in a meritocracy (we don't believe the US is a meritocracy either, but that's a different ballgame), who your parents are and where you went to school and university still has a powerful effect on your life chances generally and more particularly on your chance of  becoming part of "the establishment". In fact, this is much less true in science than of almost any field of endeavour (tho' not, of course, entirely untrue).

I think if you wanted to use a term that wasn't going to irritate people, "consensus" view might fit better, or "mainstream" view, depending on which "establishment" (the forum, or "the scientific establishment") you wanted to suggest the views here represented.

It's also probably worth observing that on this website in particular we get a lot of (slightly, or very, obsessive) posters who think they've found some way in which the current scientific model is wrong (typically they believe they've disproved general relativity or thermodynamics, or that they've invented a perpetual motion machine), and when someone points out that their new "theory" is not consistent with experimental results they wail that "the establishment" is out to get them, and that when they are seen to be right, all the people who've said them nay will lose their research grants/jobs/whatever. Of course, that's not how science works, and if someone does show that the whole of the standard model is wrong the scientists currently researching the standard model would jump for joy and then turn right round and work on the new model.

I don't get the feeling you're one of those, you seem to be actually interested in the question you posed and in what other people think about it, rather than using this as a starting point to attempt to pitch your own religious opinions. But maybe that will help explain why you may feel people've been a bit harsh about this.

Not sure this is terribly coherent, but it is at least intended to be helpful.

3

Just Chat! / Re: Can an Infinite, Designer, Creator God be Brought Within the Realm of Science?

« on: 24/01/2012 16:19:48 »

Namaan:

You want a "scientific" discussion of the idea that there might be a god, but any scientific approach requires a clearly defined, testable prediction. An omnipotent god would be in control of the outcomes of your experiments. Within any sensible definitions of "science" and "omnipotent god" it is not possible to unite the two.

That's without dragging in the fact that there are as many interpretations of god(s) as there are believers, even assuming that any one believer's view of their interpretation of god is consistent, which if the believers amongst my friends and acquaintances are typical is pretty unusual (and the bible isn't a good start on that front). So what, exactly, are you wanting to test?

4

Just Chat! / Re: JimBob update

« on: 18/01/2012 22:56:17 »

Get well soon JimBob!

5

Physiology & Medicine / Re: Can silicone from breast implants poison me?

« on: 17/01/2012 12:20:15 »

the insurance companies are reluctant to pay to have them either installed or removed

Not clear of course how relevant "the insurance companies" are here, except possibly those insuring the implant/surgery companies. Most in the UK don't have (or need) private health insurance.

FWIW it seems to me that it's probably sensible that the NHS should remove implants if there is any reason to think they're causing health problems: aside from the fact that the NHS is free at the point of need to smokers and drug users and other people who've done foolish and expensive things and then come unstuck, and it seems to me that this is an analogous case, any health problems that people suffer as a result of inappropriate implants are going to fall on the NHS for treatment and if these are caused by implants, it's clearly a provident use of NHS resources to stop them getting worse.

That said, I don't know what the cosmetic (as opposed to health) implications of implant removal, but I wouldn't favour extensive reconstruction work being carried out, and the NHS should be going after the cosmetic surgery cowboys for the full cost of any surgery (at least where it can be demonstrated that there was something wrong with the implant). The NHS mustn't be viewed by the companies making a fortune out of exploiting women's poor body image as a no-cost fallback in case of something going awry later on.

Not relevant to people who've already got implants, but I do think that anyone who's getting an implant of any sort (NHS, private, whatever) should be given the information about the expected lifetime of the product, any warranties, what they will have to do if they have any problems or worries about the implant within/beyond the after-care period, etc. And there should be strong regulation to enforce sensible rules.

6

Just Chat! / Re: sorry for teh problems

« on: 17/01/2012 10:42:44 »

Sigh. That's not technically a problem with the new forum software... I'm reasonably sure it'll be an over-zealousness of the wikipedia blacklist. What /is/ an issue with the new software is that I don't know how to get to the whitelist to put in an over-ride... I'll have to figure that out.

7

General Science / Re: Could humanity survive if 99.9% of humans were wiped out?

« on: 10/01/2012 11:41:40 »

It would probably depend on the nature and outcome of the resulting wars, but yes, the human race would survive, I think.

Of course, food would need to be the first priority.

For example in this country... we currently import food, but if we had a population 1/1000th of its current size it'd be pretty straightforward to grow enough food fairly soon.

Although modern farming technologies would probably have been lost, as they depend on assembly and supply chains for machinery (and chemical fertilizers/pest control etc.) the number of people to be fed would have crashed. It's possible to live on a more-or-less completely unrelieved diet of potatoes, which require little skill and relatively little labour to grow (provided you don't get blight), and there are other vegetables that could be grown for self-sufficiency if a large proportion of the population had died... especially as there'd be loads of land available to grow them on (and every house, and every other third-floor flat, has a book on the shelf about "feeding yourself from your allotment" or "how to grow veg", right?)

Then there's livestock... there'd be an awful lot of cows/sheep/pigs that were left with no-one to care for them. Lots of them would just die, but sheep are pretty low-maintenance and that's your meat ration sorted for the foreseeable.

Climate control would be an issue when attempting to preserve paper books for hundreds or thousands of years with minimal power.

Hundreds, let alone thousands of years wouldn't be an issue. We've got quite a lot of renewable energy plant already, and with the population slashed we certainly wouldn't need all the fossil fuels we currently burn (tho' we would lose cars, and tractors). Provided the computerised power grids weren't locked down entirely by passwords taken to the grave by the power company employees we should be able to get the grid back up within months. The telephone network would also need to be a priority.

Building new computers might mean collecting together the surviving employees of ARM, IBM, Microsoft, Google and the people who work in chip fabrication for companies I've never heard of (with translators as necessary, and as many patent databases as possible) and getting them to work together.

8

Just Chat! / Re: Our Ignorance is no Accident

« on: 05/01/2012 12:13:10 »

If the dates on posts came up in something more sensible than 3 point text...

Yers. That was a forum upgrade formatting bug.
Fixed now.

9

Guest Book / Re: Is This The Final Upgrade ?..Is it Complete ?

« on: 01/01/2012 15:29:23 »

Is This The Final Upgrade ?..Is it Complete ?

No, it's not complete. Dave's been (technically) on leave for the last fortnight (since, infact, the last server died), and thus getting the new system up and running has (all but a few hours) been happening since then at the expense of doing what we'd had planned for Christmas (not that we didn't get to do all the crucial Family Christmas things, but the other To Do lists are looking a bit sad).

There's a long list of things that aren't quite right with the new system yet (spread all over the forum), which Dave's been fixing a bit at a time... but getting the database up and running and the forum capable of accepting posts, accepting new sign-ups without accepting every spammer who wants to make our lives difficult, making sure the non-forum parts of the website like the podcast system runs as it should, etc. etc. etc. have taken priority over the need or otherwise for a few sets of brackets (actually, I think needing brackets for the animated smileys is a feature rather than a bug.. but I appreciate I'm probably outvoted).

I think all the bugs you've mentioned here have already been listed in this thread:
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=42525
Could you perhaps check that they are indeed all listed and if not post them there so that the lists of bugs people would like to see fixed are concentrated in slightly fewer places and thus stand less chance of slipping under the radar when Dave's fixing stuff over the coming weeks?

10

Physiology & Medicine / If Identical twins Marry identical Twins Will Their Offspring Look The Same ?

« on: 13/12/2011 15:47:52 »

If there are two pairs of twins, A and a and B and b, and A marries B and a marries b...

A and a are genetically as close to each other as they are to themselves (that is, not all of anyone's cells are exactly the same because of copying errors.. but identical twins result from division of one embryo at an early stage).

Likewise B and b.

So when A and B have babies, those babies have 23 chromosomes, one of each from each of their parents. Each chromosome inherited from A is a shuffled-up mixture of the two chromosomes A inherited from her parents (well, except the sex chromosomes, but we'll ignore them..). Likewise, each baby will inherit a copy of each chromosome from B.

None of A and B's children will have chromosomes that are identical (unless A and B also produce identical twins), but they will each have 50 % of their genetic material from each of A and B.

Because a and b are genetically identical to A and B respectively, their children will be genetically as similar to their cousins as to their brothers and sisters.

Note that although the genetics are identical that doesn't necessarily mean that there wouldn't be other differences. Even identical twins have different experiences starting as soon as the embryo divides. One twin may get a stronger blood supply and send up bigger, or have an easier or harder birth, or catch a tummy bug or an ear infection that affects their developement over a few days, and these could all have small effects that might cancel out or act cumulatively to affect their physical health or behaviour, and these might lead to a different environment for the production of sperm (in the bloke) at the time of having kids, or might affect the environment in the womb (for the woman), or might affect the children's home lives and whether they look more or less similar.

11

New Theories / you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?

« on: 13/12/2011 00:24:27 »

I've deleted this post and the reply to it, since they related to forum housekeeping and not relevant to the subject under discussion in the thread.

12

Cells, Microbes & Viruses / Can water be reabsorbed from the bladder?

« on: 26/11/2011 23:18:04 »

The water in the bladder leaves the blood in the kidneys and then moves down into the bladder which is basically just where it's stored until it can be got rid of... I'm fairly sure there's no way for water in the bladder to get back into the bloodstream.

13

Chemistry / What is the freezing point of water?

« on: 20/11/2011 16:37:36 »

Pure water has a freezing point of 32oF, 0oC at sea level under normal pressure. Impurities in the water (such as sea salt), pressure and altitude will raise or lower the freezing point.

Of course, altitude only makes a difference because at higher altitudes air pressure is less... there's no inherent effect on freezing point as a result of altitude if your sample were in a pressure-controlled container.

14

New Theories / Why are you intelligent ??

« on: 09/11/2011 22:37:36 »

3. i am not confused with concepts of chemistry but micro-macro interaction leading to minimization of energy must be studied and concepts should be revised.

Ah... you want to re-write thermodynamics. I see. Well, have fun.

15

New Theories / Re: Why are you intelligent ??

« on: 09/11/2011 11:44:52 »

Your assertions about the "body system" appear to be based on a near-total misunderstanding of thermodynamics. I suggest that you sit down with a good elementary undergraduate physical chemistry textbook, and fully understand the minimisation of energy on the micro-level.

if there is no soul system, then life on earth is purposeless

Why do you assume that life on earth is not purposeless? It seems to me that your "theory" comes from your instinctive wish to believe in a purpose to life, not from an interest in the realities of the universe.

16

New Theories / Re: Why are you intelligent ??

« on: 09/11/2011 11:28:17 »

Pandey: a general housekeeping point... it's best if you keep your posts in sequence with the rest of the thread (rather than editing the top post) as that makes it clear for everyone reading which responses are to which posts.

17

Cells, Microbes & Viruses / How are blood cells used as stem cells for cardiac repair?

« on: 08/11/2011 13:55:59 »

Not my area of expertise, but this looks relevant.. and NIH are I believe a reliable source.

http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/scireport/chapter9.asp

18

Chemistry / ‏ how many times does carbon equal hydrogen for heat temperature ?

« on: 04/11/2011 15:22:37 »

I'm afraid this question is completely incomprehensible. Please be more specific about what you'd like to know!

19

Just Chat! / What do you think of Meekness?

« on: 10/10/2011 18:30:15 »

I think it's a very poorly defined concept.

"Meekness" as the antithesis of arrogance is undoubtedly a good thing, both for the individual and for those around him/her. Where what it's describing is the wisdom to understand that you don't have all the answers and that you and your friends don't inevitably have Right on your side just because you (like everyone else) are the hero of your own personal drama, I think it's a very important and widely under-rated virtue (and one of my own weak points).

Conversely, where it's just another word for a cowed acceptance of whatever other people throw at you, it can be a bar to making the world a better place. There's a time and a place for turning the other cheek, but equally sometimes one has to

There's a rather cliched* saying (but of course cliches are often cliches for a good reason) about needing the strength to change the things that can be changed, the patience to endure the things that can't, and the wisdom to know the difference.. actually I've an idea it might be a prayer from somewhere or other, but then there are lots of prayers that (despite my general attitude to religion in general and organised religion in particular.. lets say I'm not generally in favour...) have extremely sensible things to say about living a useful life in the here-and-now.

* not sure how to make this editor put an acute accent on that e or on subsequent ones, you'll have to imagine it..

20

General Science / Why is the smell of your own farts more bearable?

« on: 05/10/2011 14:38:27 »

Not all farts smell bad. Some do, some don't. Depends what you've been eating, and when, and probably on other things.

If you fart yourself you're (more or less always) aware of it, whether you create a bad smell or not. When someone else farts, unless it's really noisy, you only know about it if the smell is bad enough to notice.

Therefore people will tend to think that their own farts don't smell as bad (to them) because, of the farts they're aware of, more of other people's farts smell bad than their own. It may also be the case that there's a real effect whereby people genuinely find the smell of their own farts less unpleasant than do other people, but I've never been convinced that it's anything more than a form of sampling bias.