|
On February 09 2017 17:33 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2017 17:09 Cascade wrote:On February 09 2017 16:51 xM(Z wrote:On February 09 2017 15:07 Cascade wrote:On February 09 2017 03:38 xM(Z wrote: epigenetics, depression, sperm, nature, microRNA, offsprings ... go!. I'm pretty sure you tried that already, or something very similar. Or was that someone else? I think it was you... wasn't me; what came out of it?. I was thinking of your GMO antics + Show Spoiler +On January 12 2017 15:23 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2017 04:21 xM(Z wrote: you mixed up my phrasing - protein signaling with protein digestion. - protein signaling based on gene mutation(no one knows why it mutates but environmental as well as hereditary reasons are quoted) causes Parkinson; - protein digestion - irritable bowel syndrome, autoimmune disorders and others
pepsin stops digesting nucleic acids(DNA) at ~8ph; with all them hipsters on pure alkaline diets, nothing is guaranteed. I'm trying to understand here... Are you afraid that: 1) GMO plants will happen to have DNA that cause Parkinsons in humans, but the wild type plant doesn't. 2) We eat the GMOs, and the DNA somehow doesn't get digested, because hipsters don't digest DNA. 3) The GMO DNA makes it way up into the brain. 4) the GMO DNA somehow gets into all or most of the cells in the brain. 5) The GMO DNA somehow manages to slice its way into our genome in the nucleus. 6) In a way so that the GMO DNA is actually expressed into protein. 7) This extra copy of GMO DNA has a dominant effect over the naturally occurring gene. 8) But all this only happens only to that new piece of GMO DNA that codes for the Parkinson defect. The brain doesn't otherwise turn into a plant. I guess not, but I'm struggling to get my head around what you mean. That said, I really do wish biomedical science was much more open. Few things get me as riled up as IP shenanigans blocking sciencific progress. :/ . Not identical, and I'm not sure exactly what you are after with your list of buzzwords, but seems pretty related, no? lol, nope but the words would fit in a way. i've been reading about some depressed dudes in here and found http://www.nature.com/news/sperm-rna-carries-marks-of-trauma-1.15049 Show nested quote +Trauma’s impact comes partly from social factors, such as its influence on how parents interact with their children. But stress also leaves ‘epigenetic marks’ — chemical changes that affect how DNA is expressed without altering its sequence. A study published this week in Nature Neuroscience finds that stress in early life alters the production of small RNAs, called microRNAs, in the sperm of mice. The mice show depressive behaviours that persist in their progeny, which also show glitches in metabolism. ... Show nested quote +In the new study, Isabelle Mansuy, a neuroscientist at the University of Zurich, Switzerland, and her colleagues periodically separated mother mice from their young pups and exposed the mothers to stressful situations — either by placing them in cold water or physically restraining them. These separations occurred every day but at erratic times, so that the mothers could not comfort their pups (termed the F1 generation) with extra cuddling before separation.
When raised this way, male offspring showed depressive behaviours and tended to underestimate risk, the study found. Their sperm also showed abnormally high expression of five microRNAs. One of these, miR-375, has been linked to stress and regulation of metabolism.
The F1 males’ offspring, the F2 generation, showed similar depressive behaviours, as well as abnormal sugar metabolism. The F1 and F2 generations also had abnormal levels of the five microRNAs in their blood and in the hippocampus, a brain region involved in stress responses. Behavioural effects persisted in the F3 generation as well. so if they can't/won't get cured, at least they should not breed. or, i can even pin "a fetus is a human being" on this and be right; it understands/shares my pain!. Edit: or refugees, war refugees. they would have depressed/stressed, fearless children prone to act up. Probably just another nature paper that won't stand up to replication attempts. Dodgy stats without properly accounting for biological variance, p-hacking, publishing bias, impact bias, and all that. If you read on they talk about limitations and inconsistencies in their data.
I won't go into the ethics discussion you are trying to provoke.
|
On February 09 2017 18:27 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2017 15:54 OtherWorld wrote: Every question that transforms this thread into the "Physicists and Mathematicians' Fight Club thread" are among the stupidest ever asked I think you mean "best" Show nested quote +On February 09 2017 16:29 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On February 09 2017 16:18 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On February 09 2017 16:11 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On February 09 2017 15:54 OtherWorld wrote: Every question that transforms this thread into the "Physicists and Mathematicians' Fight Club thread" are among the stupidest ever asked Imagine a plane is sitting on a conveyor belt, as wide and long as a runway. The conveyor belt is designed to exactly match the speed of the wheels, moving in the opposite direction. Can the plane take off? no. lift is based on speed compared the air right? so since the plane is moving nothing compared to the speed of the air around it it has no lift. I'm not an expert but that seems pretty obvious. It's like saying. a guy is pushing a car that won't move, how much work is he doing? The actual answer is that the question is fundamentally flawed and that I should feel bad for asking it. There's no way to "have the conveyor belt match the speed of the wheels". If you make the conveyor belt move faster, the wheels will just spin faster. Generally this question is pretty good at getting increasingly hostile and condescending responses from both sides though. I disagree. While the conveyor belt is moving, it will also accelerate the air above it in the same direction due to friction. When the plane stays stationary, this means that there is airflow around the wings. The plane can lift off if the conveyor is running fast enough, while staying stationary above the turboconveyor. Basically, you have created a wind channel. Will the wheel break or melt before you reach that conveyor belt speed though? The belt will match the speed of the wheels, so if the wheels fall of or melt onto the belt, the belt will stop.
|
On February 09 2017 18:33 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2017 18:27 Simberto wrote:On February 09 2017 15:54 OtherWorld wrote: Every question that transforms this thread into the "Physicists and Mathematicians' Fight Club thread" are among the stupidest ever asked I think you mean "best" On February 09 2017 16:29 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On February 09 2017 16:18 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On February 09 2017 16:11 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On February 09 2017 15:54 OtherWorld wrote: Every question that transforms this thread into the "Physicists and Mathematicians' Fight Club thread" are among the stupidest ever asked Imagine a plane is sitting on a conveyor belt, as wide and long as a runway. The conveyor belt is designed to exactly match the speed of the wheels, moving in the opposite direction. Can the plane take off? no. lift is based on speed compared the air right? so since the plane is moving nothing compared to the speed of the air around it it has no lift. I'm not an expert but that seems pretty obvious. It's like saying. a guy is pushing a car that won't move, how much work is he doing? The actual answer is that the question is fundamentally flawed and that I should feel bad for asking it. There's no way to "have the conveyor belt match the speed of the wheels". If you make the conveyor belt move faster, the wheels will just spin faster. Generally this question is pretty good at getting increasingly hostile and condescending responses from both sides though. I disagree. While the conveyor belt is moving, it will also accelerate the air above it in the same direction due to friction. When the plane stays stationary, this means that there is airflow around the wings. The plane can lift off if the conveyor is running fast enough, while staying stationary above the turboconveyor. Basically, you have created a wind channel. Will the wheel break or melt before you reach that conveyor belt speed though? The belt will match the speed of the wheels, so if the wheels fall of or melt onto the belt, the belt will stop.
I am pretty sure that it is not possible to make a new point in this problem but am too lazy to google it on mobile, so: what is the effect of the airflow caused by the belt and wheels? If it causes the plane to jump slightly and lose traction with the belt, does the belt stop? Does it restart aftet next touch? can the jumping eventually lead to such heights that the plane stays afloat? what is the rebound propertes of the belt?
such a rabbit hole
|
Lol. You people. The answer was already given.
Stop thinking about the airplane as if it were a car. An airplane doesn't move because of the friction with the road, it moves despite the friction with the road. Both propellors and jet engines rely on the friction with air to start the airplane moving. The conveyor belt will do exactly nothing. Although Cascade is right that you might be able to get the wheels to melt, which would cause the friction between the airplane and the road to become too large for the jet/propellor engine to overcome.
I haven't done the math, but pretty sure the conveyor belt's effect on the windspeed is going to be completely negligible at the speeds we're talking about.
|
This was on Mythbusters. Episode 97. The plane takes off.
Well I suppose in this case the conveyor belt does not match the speed of the airplane so there is a difference between what Mythbusters did and what Ziggurat asked, though he already admitted his question was intentionally flawed.
|
On February 09 2017 18:48 Acrofales wrote: Lol. You people. The answer was already given.
Stop thinking about the airplane as if it were a car. An airplane doesn't move because of the friction with the road, it moves despite the friction with the road. Both propellors and jet engines rely on the friction with air to start the airplane moving. The conveyor belt will do exactly nothing. Although Cascade is right that you might be able to get the wheels to melt, which would cause the friction between the airplane and the road to become too large for the jet/propellor engine to overcome.
I haven't done the math, but pretty sure the conveyor belt's effect on the windspeed is going to be completely negligible at the speeds we're talking about.
I was ignoring the whole "wheels" part, and just assuming that we somehow keep the plane in place, while a conveyor belt goes in the opposite direction below it. How you manage to do this is not that important. For the other possible cases to interpret this question, see below.
If you just have a conveyor belt below it, and accelerate the plane with turbines as usual, the conveyor belt does exactly nothing and the plane lifts off as usual.
If you don't use the turbines, but have a conveyor belt running backwards under the plane, the plane will slowly accelerate backwards until it reaches the speed of the conveyor belt, at which point nothing interesting happens.
If you don't use the turbines, and have a conveyor belt at the speed of the wheels, nothing happens because the wheels themselves don't move.
With regards to "the speeds we are talking about", i am talking about turning up the speed until it becomes relevant, because nothing interesting happens before that. I guess the wheels melting might happen before that speed, though.
|
On February 09 2017 18:48 Acrofales wrote: Lol. You people. The answer was already given.
Stop thinking about the airplane as if it were a car. An airplane doesn't move because of the friction with the road, it moves despite the friction with the road. Both propellors and jet engines rely on the friction with air to start the airplane moving. The conveyor belt will do exactly nothing. Although Cascade is right that you might be able to get the wheels to melt, which would cause the friction between the airplane and the road to become too large for the jet/propellor engine to overcome.
I haven't done the math, but pretty sure the conveyor belt's effect on the windspeed is going to be completely negligible at the speeds we're talking about.
Lol you acro, the second I saw you posted I was sure it was along those lines
You need to free yourself from the whole "plane is not a car" line of discussion - nobody who needs convincing about that is worth talking to about the subject for a split second. Just assume that everyone understands how a plane moves and ignore those that you have doubts about ...
Now this is where the question is partly flawed - it is simply quite difficult to establish the conditions that are posed in the question. But that it not an interesting approach to the topic, is it? So every time we talk about this sillyness, we tacitly assume that the conditions defined in the question are somehow fullfilled. To this end, it is necessary to think about how would that be possible and the consequences must be examined from there.
The question asks for the belt to try to keep the plane from moving by rolling. Rolling is the only think that the belt does, apparently, so the belt has essentially two actions to take - roll faster or roll slower. When the plane turns up the engines, it will start moving and thus will the belt, it's the only feasible action. This will, through the friction in the wheels, exert force in the plane in the direction opposite to the engines. The question is whether the belt is able to exert force of sufficient magnitude to balance the force of the engines - in such a case, the plane will stop moving. According to the question, the belt should at least try, which means possible gaining ridiculous speeds, spinning the wheels to very high revs and furthermore moving itself at possibly much larger speeds than the takeoff speed of the airplane, thus creating an important airflow. That makes a pressing issue whether there is actually a belt speed when moving faster becomes detrimental to preventing the plane from launching.
|
On February 09 2017 18:30 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2017 17:33 xM(Z wrote:On February 09 2017 17:09 Cascade wrote:On February 09 2017 16:51 xM(Z wrote:On February 09 2017 15:07 Cascade wrote:On February 09 2017 03:38 xM(Z wrote: epigenetics, depression, sperm, nature, microRNA, offsprings ... go!. I'm pretty sure you tried that already, or something very similar. Or was that someone else? I think it was you... wasn't me; what came out of it?. I was thinking of your GMO antics + Show Spoiler +On January 12 2017 15:23 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2017 04:21 xM(Z wrote: you mixed up my phrasing - protein signaling with protein digestion. - protein signaling based on gene mutation(no one knows why it mutates but environmental as well as hereditary reasons are quoted) causes Parkinson; - protein digestion - irritable bowel syndrome, autoimmune disorders and others
pepsin stops digesting nucleic acids(DNA) at ~8ph; with all them hipsters on pure alkaline diets, nothing is guaranteed. I'm trying to understand here... Are you afraid that: 1) GMO plants will happen to have DNA that cause Parkinsons in humans, but the wild type plant doesn't. 2) We eat the GMOs, and the DNA somehow doesn't get digested, because hipsters don't digest DNA. 3) The GMO DNA makes it way up into the brain. 4) the GMO DNA somehow gets into all or most of the cells in the brain. 5) The GMO DNA somehow manages to slice its way into our genome in the nucleus. 6) In a way so that the GMO DNA is actually expressed into protein. 7) This extra copy of GMO DNA has a dominant effect over the naturally occurring gene. 8) But all this only happens only to that new piece of GMO DNA that codes for the Parkinson defect. The brain doesn't otherwise turn into a plant. I guess not, but I'm struggling to get my head around what you mean. That said, I really do wish biomedical science was much more open. Few things get me as riled up as IP shenanigans blocking sciencific progress. :/ . Not identical, and I'm not sure exactly what you are after with your list of buzzwords, but seems pretty related, no? lol, nope but the words would fit in a way. i've been reading about some depressed dudes in here and found http://www.nature.com/news/sperm-rna-carries-marks-of-trauma-1.15049 Trauma’s impact comes partly from social factors, such as its influence on how parents interact with their children. But stress also leaves ‘epigenetic marks’ — chemical changes that affect how DNA is expressed without altering its sequence. A study published this week in Nature Neuroscience finds that stress in early life alters the production of small RNAs, called microRNAs, in the sperm of mice. The mice show depressive behaviours that persist in their progeny, which also show glitches in metabolism. ... In the new study, Isabelle Mansuy, a neuroscientist at the University of Zurich, Switzerland, and her colleagues periodically separated mother mice from their young pups and exposed the mothers to stressful situations — either by placing them in cold water or physically restraining them. These separations occurred every day but at erratic times, so that the mothers could not comfort their pups (termed the F1 generation) with extra cuddling before separation.
When raised this way, male offspring showed depressive behaviours and tended to underestimate risk, the study found. Their sperm also showed abnormally high expression of five microRNAs. One of these, miR-375, has been linked to stress and regulation of metabolism.
The F1 males’ offspring, the F2 generation, showed similar depressive behaviours, as well as abnormal sugar metabolism. The F1 and F2 generations also had abnormal levels of the five microRNAs in their blood and in the hippocampus, a brain region involved in stress responses. Behavioural effects persisted in the F3 generation as well. so if they can't/won't get cured, at least they should not breed. or, i can even pin "a fetus is a human being" on this and be right; it understands/shares my pain!. Edit: or refugees, war refugees. they would have depressed/stressed, fearless children prone to act up. Probably just another nature paper that won't stand up to replication attempts. Dodgy stats without properly accounting for biological variance, p-hacking, publishing bias, impact bias, and all that. If you read on they talk about limitations and inconsistencies in their data. I won't go into the ethics discussion you are trying to provoke.  but that's why this is fun, it's unknown territory. besides, the results can and are replicated in more/different experiments/studies + Show Spoiler +Recent studies have suggested that physiological and behavioral traits may be transgenerationally inherited through the paternal lineage, possibly via non-genomic signals derived from the sperm. To investigate how paternal stress might influence offspring behavioral phenotypes, a model of hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal (HPA) axis dysregulation was used. Male breeders were administered water supplemented with corticosterone (CORT) for 4 weeks before mating with untreated female mice. Female, but not male, F1 offspring of CORT-treated fathers displayed altered fear extinction at 2 weeks of age. Only male F1 offspring exhibited altered patterns of ultrasonic vocalization at postnatal day 3 and, as adults, showed decreased time in open on the elevated-plus maze and time in light on the light–dark apparatus, suggesting a hyperanxiety-like behavioral phenotype due to paternal CORT treatment. Interestingly, expression of the paternally imprinted gene Igf2 was increased in the hippocampus of F1 male offspring but downregulated in female offspring. Male and female F2 offspring displayed increased time spent in the open arm of the elevated-plus maze, suggesting lower levels of anxiety compared with control animals. Only male F2 offspring showed increased immobility time on the forced-swim test and increased latency to feed on the novelty-supressed feeding test, suggesting a depression-like phenotype in these animals. Collectively, these data provide evidence that paternal CORT treatment alters anxiety and depression-related behaviors across multiple generations. Analysis of the small RNA profile in sperm from CORT-treated males revealed marked effects on the expression of small noncoding RNAs. Sperm from CORT-treated males contained elevated levels of three microRNAs, miR-98, miR-144 and miR-190b, which are predicted to interact with multiple growth factors, including Igf2 and Bdnf. Sustained elevation of glucocorticoids is therefore involved in the transmission of paternal stress-induced traits across generations in a process involving small noncoding RNA signals transmitted by the male germline. +or this, which summarizes the whole situation nicely: Significance Increasing evidence suggests that certain acquired traits can be transmitted to the next generation. However, controversy over the inheritance of acquired traits remains, as the exact molecular and mechanistic basis for these observations remains largely unclear. In this study, using a nongenetic prediabetes mouse model, we have shown that environmentally induced epigenetic alterations in sperm can be inherited to the next generation. Paternal prediabetic conditions affect epigenetic marks in offspring and can be inherited for several generations. This finding provides a molecular basis for the inheritance of acquired traits and may have implications in explaining the prevalence of obesity, type 2 diabetes, and other chronic metabolic diseases. Abstract The global prevalence of prediabetes and type 2 diabetes (T2D) is increasing, and it is contributing to the susceptibility to diabetes and its related epidemic in offspring. Although the impacts of paternal impaired fasting blood glucose and glucose intolerance on the metabolism of offspring have been well established, the exact molecular and mechanistic basis that mediates these impacts remains largely unclear. Here we show that paternal prediabetes increases the susceptibility to diabetes in offspring through gametic epigenetic alterations. In our findings, paternal prediabetes led to glucose intolerance and insulin resistance in offspring. Relative to controls, offspring of prediabetic fathers exhibited altered gene expression patterns in the pancreatic islets, with down-regulation of several genes involved in glucose metabolism and insulin signaling pathways. Epigenomic profiling of offspring pancreatic islets revealed numerous changes in cytosine methylation depending on paternal prediabetes, including reproducible changes in methylation over several insulin signaling genes. Paternal prediabetes altered overall methylome patterns in sperm, with a large portion of differentially methylated genes overlapping with that of pancreatic islets in offspring. Our study uniquely revealed that prediabetes can be inherited transgenerationally through the mammalian germ line by an epigenetic mechanism. + , it's the means of transmission that is not totally understood. there a whole field of study https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics#Mechanisms coming up with new findings yearly.
(and talking about Trump is booooooooorringgggggggggggg unless you're an american.)
|
|
|
Canada11355 Posts
On February 09 2017 18:55 Laurens wrote: This was on Mythbusters. Episode 97. The plane takes off.
Well I suppose in this case the conveyor belt does not match the speed of the airplane so there is a difference between what Mythbusters did and what Ziggurat asked, though he already admitted his question was intentionally flawed. They used a large piece of paper and a model airplane. The airplane did not remain stationary as they pulled the large piece of paper.
|
On February 09 2017 17:14 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: why do so many scientists become supervillians in comics and cartoons and the like? wouldn't it make much more sense to just patent all their inventions and make ridiculous amounts of money instead of trying to take over the world/steal money?
Same reason Superheros do--because its mad sick bro.
Do you really think Batman helps the most people by punching thieves and muggers instead of curing cancer?
|
On February 10 2017 00:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2017 17:14 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: why do so many scientists become supervillians in comics and cartoons and the like? wouldn't it make much more sense to just patent all their inventions and make ridiculous amounts of money instead of trying to take over the world/steal money? Same reason Superheros do--because its mad sick bro. Do you really think Batman helps the most people by punching thieves and muggers instead of curing cancer? Or investing in the educational system and after school programs? PEOPLE DON'T STOP COMMITTING CRIMES BECAUSE YOU BEAT A COUPLE UP, BATMAN!!!
|
Re: Airplane on a conveyer belt Can an airplane gain forward speed if it's on a conveyer belt moving the opposite direction? Yes, the wheels just end up spinning faster. Can an airplane take off if it's somehow prevented from gaining forward speed? Not for most airplane designs.
---- Re: Water to the Moon This question was just barely sane enough to be discussable. And the (partial) answer was interesting enough to be worth discussing.
|
On February 10 2017 01:05 Buckyman wrote: Re: Airplane on a conveyer belt Can an airplane gain forward speed if it's on a conveyer belt moving the opposite direction? Yes, the wheels just end up spinning faster. Can an airplane take off if it's somehow prevented from gaining forward speed? Not for most airplane designs.
---- Re: Water to the Moon This question was just barely sane enough to be discussable. And the (partial) answer was interesting enough to be worth discussing.
The actual question being asked is: "If I spin the wheels on the plane, will the wings generate lift?"
Bringing water to the moon is actually possible--just that the logistics of *that* much water in a timeline that is considered acceptable is the issue. For example, is it possible to think that pulling the earth and moon into a singularity will create the scenario of moon and water being brought together? Would nuking the moon until its rocks crash into the earth's oceans count as bringing them together? Really--its about scale, speed, and metrics--but all doable.
The plane issue is that you're asking how affecting one thing causes an unrelated thing to react--its a bit pointless.
|
On February 10 2017 00:56 Dark_Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 00:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 09 2017 17:14 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: why do so many scientists become supervillians in comics and cartoons and the like? wouldn't it make much more sense to just patent all their inventions and make ridiculous amounts of money instead of trying to take over the world/steal money? Same reason Superheros do--because its mad sick bro. Do you really think Batman helps the most people by punching thieves and muggers instead of curing cancer? Or investing in the educational system and after school programs? PEOPLE DON'T STOP COMMITTING CRIMES BECAUSE YOU BEAT A COUPLE UP, BATMAN!!!
Unsure if "couple" means "a couple of criminals" or if it means Joker + Harley.
|
On February 10 2017 02:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 00:56 Dark_Chill wrote:On February 10 2017 00:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 09 2017 17:14 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: why do so many scientists become supervillians in comics and cartoons and the like? wouldn't it make much more sense to just patent all their inventions and make ridiculous amounts of money instead of trying to take over the world/steal money? Same reason Superheros do--because its mad sick bro. Do you really think Batman helps the most people by punching thieves and muggers instead of curing cancer? Or investing in the educational system and after school programs? PEOPLE DON'T STOP COMMITTING CRIMES BECAUSE YOU BEAT A COUPLE UP, BATMAN!!! Unsure if "couple" means "a couple of criminals" or if it means Joker + Harley. Originally couple of criminals, but either works I guess.
|
On February 09 2017 21:39 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2017 18:30 Cascade wrote:On February 09 2017 17:33 xM(Z wrote:On February 09 2017 17:09 Cascade wrote:On February 09 2017 16:51 xM(Z wrote:On February 09 2017 15:07 Cascade wrote:On February 09 2017 03:38 xM(Z wrote: epigenetics, depression, sperm, nature, microRNA, offsprings ... go!. I'm pretty sure you tried that already, or something very similar. Or was that someone else? I think it was you... wasn't me; what came out of it?. I was thinking of your GMO antics + Show Spoiler +On January 12 2017 15:23 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2017 04:21 xM(Z wrote: you mixed up my phrasing - protein signaling with protein digestion. - protein signaling based on gene mutation(no one knows why it mutates but environmental as well as hereditary reasons are quoted) causes Parkinson; - protein digestion - irritable bowel syndrome, autoimmune disorders and others
pepsin stops digesting nucleic acids(DNA) at ~8ph; with all them hipsters on pure alkaline diets, nothing is guaranteed. I'm trying to understand here... Are you afraid that: 1) GMO plants will happen to have DNA that cause Parkinsons in humans, but the wild type plant doesn't. 2) We eat the GMOs, and the DNA somehow doesn't get digested, because hipsters don't digest DNA. 3) The GMO DNA makes it way up into the brain. 4) the GMO DNA somehow gets into all or most of the cells in the brain. 5) The GMO DNA somehow manages to slice its way into our genome in the nucleus. 6) In a way so that the GMO DNA is actually expressed into protein. 7) This extra copy of GMO DNA has a dominant effect over the naturally occurring gene. 8) But all this only happens only to that new piece of GMO DNA that codes for the Parkinson defect. The brain doesn't otherwise turn into a plant. I guess not, but I'm struggling to get my head around what you mean. That said, I really do wish biomedical science was much more open. Few things get me as riled up as IP shenanigans blocking sciencific progress. :/ . Not identical, and I'm not sure exactly what you are after with your list of buzzwords, but seems pretty related, no? lol, nope but the words would fit in a way. i've been reading about some depressed dudes in here and found http://www.nature.com/news/sperm-rna-carries-marks-of-trauma-1.15049 Trauma’s impact comes partly from social factors, such as its influence on how parents interact with their children. But stress also leaves ‘epigenetic marks’ — chemical changes that affect how DNA is expressed without altering its sequence. A study published this week in Nature Neuroscience finds that stress in early life alters the production of small RNAs, called microRNAs, in the sperm of mice. The mice show depressive behaviours that persist in their progeny, which also show glitches in metabolism. ... In the new study, Isabelle Mansuy, a neuroscientist at the University of Zurich, Switzerland, and her colleagues periodically separated mother mice from their young pups and exposed the mothers to stressful situations — either by placing them in cold water or physically restraining them. These separations occurred every day but at erratic times, so that the mothers could not comfort their pups (termed the F1 generation) with extra cuddling before separation.
When raised this way, male offspring showed depressive behaviours and tended to underestimate risk, the study found. Their sperm also showed abnormally high expression of five microRNAs. One of these, miR-375, has been linked to stress and regulation of metabolism.
The F1 males’ offspring, the F2 generation, showed similar depressive behaviours, as well as abnormal sugar metabolism. The F1 and F2 generations also had abnormal levels of the five microRNAs in their blood and in the hippocampus, a brain region involved in stress responses. Behavioural effects persisted in the F3 generation as well. so if they can't/won't get cured, at least they should not breed. or, i can even pin "a fetus is a human being" on this and be right; it understands/shares my pain!. Edit: or refugees, war refugees. they would have depressed/stressed, fearless children prone to act up. Probably just another nature paper that won't stand up to replication attempts. Dodgy stats without properly accounting for biological variance, p-hacking, publishing bias, impact bias, and all that. If you read on they talk about limitations and inconsistencies in their data. I won't go into the ethics discussion you are trying to provoke.  but that's why this is fun, it's unknown territory. besides, the results can and are replicated in more/different experiments/studies + Show Spoiler +Recent studies have suggested that physiological and behavioral traits may be transgenerationally inherited through the paternal lineage, possibly via non-genomic signals derived from the sperm. To investigate how paternal stress might influence offspring behavioral phenotypes, a model of hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal (HPA) axis dysregulation was used. Male breeders were administered water supplemented with corticosterone (CORT) for 4 weeks before mating with untreated female mice. Female, but not male, F1 offspring of CORT-treated fathers displayed altered fear extinction at 2 weeks of age. Only male F1 offspring exhibited altered patterns of ultrasonic vocalization at postnatal day 3 and, as adults, showed decreased time in open on the elevated-plus maze and time in light on the light–dark apparatus, suggesting a hyperanxiety-like behavioral phenotype due to paternal CORT treatment. Interestingly, expression of the paternally imprinted gene Igf2 was increased in the hippocampus of F1 male offspring but downregulated in female offspring. Male and female F2 offspring displayed increased time spent in the open arm of the elevated-plus maze, suggesting lower levels of anxiety compared with control animals. Only male F2 offspring showed increased immobility time on the forced-swim test and increased latency to feed on the novelty-supressed feeding test, suggesting a depression-like phenotype in these animals. Collectively, these data provide evidence that paternal CORT treatment alters anxiety and depression-related behaviors across multiple generations. Analysis of the small RNA profile in sperm from CORT-treated males revealed marked effects on the expression of small noncoding RNAs. Sperm from CORT-treated males contained elevated levels of three microRNAs, miR-98, miR-144 and miR-190b, which are predicted to interact with multiple growth factors, including Igf2 and Bdnf. Sustained elevation of glucocorticoids is therefore involved in the transmission of paternal stress-induced traits across generations in a process involving small noncoding RNA signals transmitted by the male germline. +or this, which summarizes the whole situation nicely: Significance Increasing evidence suggests that certain acquired traits can be transmitted to the next generation. However, controversy over the inheritance of acquired traits remains, as the exact molecular and mechanistic basis for these observations remains largely unclear. In this study, using a nongenetic prediabetes mouse model, we have shown that environmentally induced epigenetic alterations in sperm can be inherited to the next generation. Paternal prediabetic conditions affect epigenetic marks in offspring and can be inherited for several generations. This finding provides a molecular basis for the inheritance of acquired traits and may have implications in explaining the prevalence of obesity, type 2 diabetes, and other chronic metabolic diseases. Abstract The global prevalence of prediabetes and type 2 diabetes (T2D) is increasing, and it is contributing to the susceptibility to diabetes and its related epidemic in offspring. Although the impacts of paternal impaired fasting blood glucose and glucose intolerance on the metabolism of offspring have been well established, the exact molecular and mechanistic basis that mediates these impacts remains largely unclear. Here we show that paternal prediabetes increases the susceptibility to diabetes in offspring through gametic epigenetic alterations. In our findings, paternal prediabetes led to glucose intolerance and insulin resistance in offspring. Relative to controls, offspring of prediabetic fathers exhibited altered gene expression patterns in the pancreatic islets, with down-regulation of several genes involved in glucose metabolism and insulin signaling pathways. Epigenomic profiling of offspring pancreatic islets revealed numerous changes in cytosine methylation depending on paternal prediabetes, including reproducible changes in methylation over several insulin signaling genes. Paternal prediabetes altered overall methylome patterns in sperm, with a large portion of differentially methylated genes overlapping with that of pancreatic islets in offspring. Our study uniquely revealed that prediabetes can be inherited transgenerationally through the mammalian germ line by an epigenetic mechanism. +, it's the means of transmission that is not totally understood. there a whole field of study https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics#Mechanisms coming up with new findings yearly. (and talking about Trump is booooooooorringgggggggggggg unless you're an american.) Ah, yeah, paper is from 2014. I still am not convinced, but as I have no intention of going through a proper lit review on the subject, I retract the previous statement. 
And how is sterilising people with (believed) flawed inheritable traits unknown territory? The discussion has been very relevant from thew start of genetics. Indeed, already the nazis suggested very similar things (it wasn't popular).
In genetics (as you may know?), standard procedure is to see a genetic counselor, that then judges case by case whether the individual should be informed about the genetic defects or not. In general, to do anything at all, they want very strong evidence that the genetic trait is actually causing, and they prefer it to be actionable, in the sense that maybe you can also test your partner, or do in vitro fertilization and select an egg that doesn't have the defect, or something like that. At that point they sometimes inform the individual, and it is then up to them to choose what they want to do.
Sterilizing certainly is never on the table. And I don't think there is any believed inheritable epigenetic (or this miRNA thing) trait, that has anywhere close to sufficient evidence of cause for a genetic counselor to consider mentioning it. If you go to a naturopath or whatever they are called, then it's a completely different story of course.
|
Are there cigarettes that smell like skunk? Wonder if neighbors are smoking a specific brand or doing recreationals.
|
On February 10 2017 13:19 riotjune wrote: Are there cigarettes that smell like skunk? Wonder if neighbors are smoking a specific brand or doing recreationals.
I've had skunks in my backyard before, so it's not impossible.
Nothing drug related that I can think of off the top of my head that smells like skunk.
|
Are you talking about skunk
![[image loading]](http://woodstream.scene7.com/is/image/woodstream/hh-animals-skunk-5?$ProductPgLarge2$)
Or skunk?
|
|
|
|
|
|