Ask a Biologist Thread

[Gawdzilla Sama]

UM marketing already controls our minds and we ARE monkeys .
other than that if you don't want your children GM don't mate with plants .

Okay, I'll stop screwing watermelons. They never call anyway.

Oh, but what about that glow in the dark shit, won't that creep out into the environment and create new monsters that will attack donut shops and strip malls?

[Animavore]

Is it possible to cross a chimp and a human and, if so, how do I go about it?

[leo-rcc]

How did Commensalism evolve, and what are the earliest known examples?

[Feck]

UM marketing already controls our minds and we ARE monkeys .
other than that if you don't want your children GM don't mate with plants .

Okay, I'll stop screwing watermelons. They never call anyway.

Oh, but what about that glow in the dark shit, won't that creep out into the environment and create new monsters that will attack donut shops and strip malls?

We don't absorb DNA we eat into our own DNA ,but as a worst case virus vectors used to affect gene therapies might add a gene to your DNA but transgenic lab animals not going to take over the world just yet .

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Is it possible to cross a chimp and a human and, if so, how do I go about it?

Get them both angry at the same time, I suppose.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

We don't absorb DNA we eat into our own DNA ,but as a worst case virus vectors used to affect gene therapies might add a gene to your DNA but transgenic lab animals not going to take over the world just yet .

Scientists don't know everything, if they did they could all go home.

[FBM]

Simple answer:

It didn't.

Complex explanation:

We conceptualize life as a category discrete from the inanimate, but this isn't actually true. There is no discrete division between life and non-life in the platonic sense- which would involve real ideals for living and non-living things. To be alive, there need only be a specific collection of traits, together in the same time and space. None of the traits are unique to life, however, and can be observed in relatively simple systems if we know how to look for them- it's just chemistry. If we simplified our definition of life, more things would be alive. If we restricted our definition of life, fewer things would be alive. Life is a human invention to describe a category of chemical reaction- typically one involving a relatively complex chemical system.

The line between the animate and the inanimate isn't a thin one or a sharp one. We will very likely see that definition change within our lifetimes. When the definition of life changes, so too will the explanation of its origins. I think it's safe to say that life (as we currently define it) probably originated with the accidental juxtaposition of chemical elements which functioned in a complimentary manner and tended to cause similar elements to organize in the same way. We can see that complex, inanimate molecules are capable of a sort of replication by serving as templates for other extant molecules by observing the activity of prions. As soon as some mechanism for the reproduction of complimentary systems arose, natural selection would be inevitable- all that is needed for natural selection is some sort of imperfect replicator and nature doesn't care whether it is living or not.

So, to summarize: The first replicators probably didn't fit our current definition of what is alive. But the first replicators are usually what people are thinking of when they think about the origins of life. As the question is very probably flawed, it is possible to answer it with a simple negative. But, as I like to hear myself talk (or type, in this case), you get an involved negative rather than a simple one.

Now it's time to accept my beating as, even in a group this small, there is bound to be someone who spots a flaw in what I just said.

I'm not even going to try to be funny. This is an excellent post.

And a question or ten:

Since organisms (and other objects) are involved in a non-stop interchange of matter and energy with the environment, and the electromagnetic and gravitational fields of any apparent object have theoretically infinite ranges, isn't the assumption that any apparent individual is somehow 'embedded' in the universe/world, discrete from it somehow, existentially distinct, based on a fundamental ignorance of physical actuality? IF that's the case, what happens to individuality? Isn't self-identity a perceptual illusion, brought about by the 'accidental', centralized location of the sense organs, including the brain? Is it really possible to definitively, accurately draw a line around a single thing and say 'Anything within this line is X and anything outside it is not-X"?

If you don't feel like fucking with that, I'd really appreciate some advice on how to get rid of nail fungus.

[Feck]

"Isn't self-identity a perceptual illusion, brought about by the 'accidental', centralized location of the sense organs, including the brain? "
Yes !

oh and have you tried T-Tree oil on your nails

[FBM]

"Isn't self-identity a perceptual illusion, brought about by the 'accidental', centralized location of the sense organs, including the brain? "
Yes !

Cool! Thanks!

oh and have you tried T-Tree oil on your nails

I read about it, but I can't find a supplier here in Korea. I can probably find an overseas source, though. Any experience with it? I tend to be skeptical of the adverts.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"Isn't self-identity a perceptual illusion, brought about by the 'accidental', centralized location of the sense organs, including the brain? "
Yes !

Cool! Thanks!

oh and have you tried T-Tree oil on your nails

I read about it, but I can't find a supplier here in Korea. I can probably find an overseas source, though. Any experience with it? I tend to be skeptical of the adverts.

I'm having some luck with bleach. You can either soak your feet in a dilute solution or daub it on with a Q-tip. There are many varieties, however, and a podiatrist told me none of the "cures" really worked. (She was a bit surprised that I was having luck with the bleach. She took pictures of my nails for reference.)

[Feck]

"Isn't self-identity a perceptual illusion, brought about by the 'accidental', centralized location of the sense organs, including the brain? "
Yes !

Cool! Thanks!

oh and have you tried T-Tree oil on your nails

I read about it, but I can't find a supplier here in Korea. I can probably find an overseas source, though. Any experience with it? I tend to be skeptical of the adverts.

Should be able to get it from any source of essential oils ,it is an effective fungicide ,but there again so are the ones a Doctor would prescribe .

[FBM]

Should be able to get it from any source of essential oils ,it is an effective fungicide ,but there again so are the ones a Doctor would prescribe .

I've been using prescribed capsules and Loprox for a year now. It's only 50% resolved so far. I figure tea tree oil can't do any harm, at the very least. I'll get right on finding some. Thanks for reminding me of it. I'd actually forgotten all about it.

A non-discrete, non-entity, not embedded in an external universe says

[Feck]

A non-discrete, non-entity, not embedded in an external universe says

No it didn't my brain just made it up

[FBM]

A non-discrete, non-entity, not embedded in an external universe says

No it didn't my brain just made it up

[Psi Wavefunction]

I'll get to answering some Qs tonight, when I'm not rediculously late for the last lecture of a class I haven't attended since the midterm...