Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Biology News
Bill, that is not what I was looking for.  I was trying to get a look at what the Real Deal looked like, not some drawing.  

Here is something of what I was looking for, but this is of a real leaf.  Artificial leaf could make green hydrogen.  

[Image: ju3103.JPG]

This artificial process has been around for some time now, and I am aware of its use in the possibilities of breaking down water H2O into its basic parts and using the hydrogen for fuel source.  At the time you posted this, I didn't know that this would be an offshoot of this same technology.  That's why I was looking for what the leaf would actually look like.  

Remember, leaves take in CO2 and break it down for the carbon as their food source.  So the process may be a little different, and that is what I would love to understand better.
“Conservatism is only as good as what it conserves.” - Friedrich von Hayek -
There were hundreds of pix in the linking procedure I gave you.
Here is something that is being proven over time.

Quote:Research shows poor kids really do grow up faster—and risk a lifetime of health problems

How could this happen?

Research on the biology of stress shows how major adversity, like extreme poverty, can permanently set the body’s stress response to high alert, affecting the brain’s circuits. This might, in turn, influence how reproductive hormones are regulated, so affecting the timing and trajectory of puberty.

Another body of research suggests the social environment can influence so-called epigenetic changes in our genes. These changes might affect the regulation of genes involved in reproductive development, switching some on or off sooner than usual.

Another theory is that in the face of hardship—for instance, economic disadvantage, harsh physical environment, the absence of a father—children may be programmed to start the reproductive process earlier to ensure their genes are passed on to the next generation.

Yet, we still don’t know exactly how poverty or disadvantage triggers early puberty.

What we do know, however, is early puberty is linked with a range of health issues.

For instance, in girls, it’s linked with emotional, behavioral and social problems during adolescence including: depressive disorders, substance disorders, eating disorders and earlier-than-usual displays of sexuality.

Early puberty also affects people’s health far beyond their teenage years. It places them at a greater risk of developing obesity, reproductive cancers and cardiometabolic diseases (diabetes, heart disease or stroke) in later life

My biggest reservation here is that there is no coverage of the effects of poor diet.  A few years ago there was a scientific article that suggested that highly refined carbs could well be the main ingredient in early puberty.  And along with highly refined carbs comes other chemical preservatives that are not found in fresh unrefined foods.  

I grew up in an NCO family and my mother was a country girl, who grew up on a farm.  All of her siblings entered puberty later than most, and I was almost sixteen, almost half way through my sophomore year before I entered it.  My mom did almost 100% of scratch cooking and being in Alaska, we never ate fast foods.  I sometimes had candy, but mostly ice cream which was fresh from Palmer, Alaska, and back then there were no preservatives in the mix.  

So, I personally believe the main reason is diet.  Poor families tend to buy foods that are less expensive and offer more volume for the dollar.  And this tends to be highly processed carbohydrates, such as chips, pasta, potatoes and corn.  Even french fries are cooked in highly refined oils, as well as potato chips, and most foods that are considered 'fast foods'.  That's what I believe to be the main culprit.  

I also know that children entering puberty later tend to live longer and look younger over their lifespan.  This was me in my senior class picture, at age 23.  I was always ashamed to show it to people because I looked like a high school teenager.

[Image: 67_Kelly_JL.jpg]
“Conservatism is only as good as what it conserves.” - Friedrich von Hayek -
Sports medicine tells us that a small child that hits a growth spurt late is the pool from which the best athletes come. Many high school coaches pass over the good freshman talent because they're too small - yet by their senior year, if they had the right grandparents, that small player may become a late bloomer with the most quick-twitch muscle fibers that often form late. A good coach will train up that small player and anticipate future greatness, that the early big players never reach. Small players also have a shortened nerve-impulse system and can have fine abilities that stay with them as they mature.
This is a very informative video and well worth taking out four minutes of your time.

Which Animal Murders the Most?
“Conservatism is only as good as what it conserves.” - Friedrich von Hayek -
The advantages of being raised in a household with 2 parents and fairly good economic standards compared to less is pretty demonstrable. Beyond long term health.

My daughter told me about a documentary where this single black mom had a daughter ~ 3 years old. Got PG again and adopted out that one because she had fallen into drug addiction. Kept the oldest girl.

The documentary was 25 years later. You can guess how it turned out. Young girl is a CEO of a successful small business, married, 2 pretty kids. Older girl is in prison.

It's no denying that advantage. I got the advantage, but, I can see now that some folks didn't and it ain't all on them that things haven't worked out real well. Course there are cases where advantaged people fail or people raised in bad ways succeed, but, the odds are strong it keeps on keeping on both directions.
(06-17-2017, 08:39 AM)Palladin Wrote: ...a documentary where this single black mom...

A far better research study was of a Black single mother who was revered by the entire low income housing project. She was considered THE greatest example of what a parent should be. And yet...

I have no idea of how to find that study now or how to link to it, but here is my best memory of it. A young white psychologist went to live with the woman and her family for half a year, then went to live with a typical white two-parent family.

The single greatest telling aspect was that the single Black mom felt the most important educational training was for her children to get a full night's sleep before school. The White family was taught to finish their homework regardless of getting any sleep at all.

The end result was that the Black community took their cues from their leading light, and they all failed. The White family and others with the same mindset prospered.

What the researcher documented was that it was the mindset, not the nanny state that kept her people down. Perhaps the nanny state encouraged the sloth, but it wasn't the deciding factor, as some people in the same situation rose above it.
For those Eco-Wackos who keep saying that we are in the middle of a 6th mass extinction, caused by those evil humans, here is a reality check.

Earth Is Not in the Midst of a Sixth Mass Extinction. “As scientists we have a responsibility to be accurate about such comparisons.”
“Conservatism is only as good as what it conserves.” - Friedrich von Hayek -
And now for the latest on Parkinson's.

Quote:Century-old Parkinson's question answered

Scientists say they have found the first direct evidence that the immune system does attack the brain in Parkinson's disease.

The role of "autoimmunity" was first suggested nearly a century ago, but had not been confirmed.

The discovery, in the journal Nature, suggests that drugs to calm the immune system could help manage the disease.

In Parkinson's the brain is progressively damaged leading to a tremor and difficulty moving.

And at the same time very high levels of the protein alpha-synuclein accumulate in the brain.
“Conservatism is only as good as what it conserves.” - Friedrich von Hayek -
In in the field of advertisement, for decades it has been assumed that sex appeal can help sell an item.  Apparently not.  Shock

Research suggests sexual appeals in ads don’t sell brands, products
“Conservatism is only as good as what it conserves.” - Friedrich von Hayek -
I caught this article today on The Blaze, about pesticides in plants and where they originate. It was quite interesting, so I went to the 1990 peer reviewed study and checked it out.

Dietary pesticides (99.99% all natural)*

I didn't read the entire paper, but did get a pretty good idea about the real cause of the overwhelming majority of pesticides. So when an "Earth Firster" tries to make the point that man made pesticides are the real cause of problems affecting plants, you can quote this scientific study. Here's the Abstract. S22

Quote:ABSTRACT The toxicological significance of exposures to
synthetic chemicals is examined in the context of exposures to
naturally occurring chemicals. We calculate that 99.99% (by
weight) of the pesticides in the American diet are chemicals that
plants produce to defend themselves. Only 52 natural pesticides
have been tested in high-dose animal cancer tests, and about
half (27) are rodent carcinogens; these 27 are shown to be
present in many common foods. We conclude that natural and
synthetic chemicals are equally likely to be positive in animal
cancer tests. We also conclude that at the low doses of most
human exposures the comparative hazards of synthetic pesticide
residues are insignificant.
“Conservatism is only as good as what it conserves.” - Friedrich von Hayek -
Nice abstract: It'll kill you - but its safe.

Does this have anything to do with the fake meeting by the EPA Secretary with the Dow Chemical owner? It was found not to have occurred.
(07-05-2017, 07:07 PM)WmLambert Wrote: Nice abstract: It'll kill you - but its safe.

Does this have anything to do with the fake meeting by the EPA Secretary with the Dow Chemical owner? It was found not to have occurred.

No idea about that. I just found this most interesting about how plants create their own pesticides to keep from being eaten by rodents and insects. Makes a lot of sense too. Spiteful
“Conservatism is only as good as what it conserves.” - Friedrich von Hayek -
Not sure if this should be in the Archeology thread, but it is biology based on archeological findings: Here.

Ancient humans had sex with non humans,

I've been reviewing the History Channel's series on Ancient Aliens. The series brings up all the reasons why early man may have been steered in technological directions far beyond their innate ability. ...Things like a near-neolithic tribe worshiping visitors from Sirius-B which was not even discovered recently.

Findings from this new discovery makes one wonder if that ghost species was extraterrestrial. Who else would leave no fossilized evidence behind?

One of the neat twists in this series was that the Great Pyramid in Giza had similarities to Tesla's Wardenclyffe Tower.
Sirius B may have been brighter 2,000 years ago. Stars have been known to vary in their apparent brightness, for reasons that are not necessarily known. Sirius (not B) was reported to be red in appearance by many historical sources, including Ptolemy. Today it appears to be blue-white. The main objection modern scientists have to this is the implication that it would contradict current theories about the life cycles of stars, and the time scale assumed to govern them. I have always had disrespect for modern scientists who think their theories are more important than the objective observations of ancient peoples, such as astrologers. Scientists who ignore the evidence and freely call ancient professional observers liars should not be regarded as scientists. That is not the way the scientific mind is supposed to work!

But it is only to be expected that people who fanatically assume that the earth and universe are billions of years old, just so they can make the impossibility of evolution appear to be more plausible, will produce many fallacious theories about nearly everything. And when those theories run into contradictions, like the objective observations of professional observers thousands of years ago, we see how many modern scientists betray their truly unscientific biased attitudes.
I have no problem with the Universe being billions of years old. After all, the first day was unmeasurable.
I also don't cause that's what the evidence shows.

I think some believers think the bible is about all humanity back then where I think it was about a small area of earth that they were discussing and we believers should see them as a prolepsis for all humanity.

Read what Paul and Peter said shortly after the resurrection, "this Gospel has been preached all over the inhabited earth". In their narrow view it really had cause they thought Ethiopia was the end of the earth heading south for example. But, it had not been literally based on our knowledge.

But, the ancient Jews had the limited view of all humanity and about stuff science related.

Another example, the star of Bethlehem. Stars do not stop. We've known that since forever, way back into the BC era.

So, this star did not stop and we Christians ought not to try and say it did because the bible "says it stopped". That's taking the bible as a science book.

What is reasonable is to say it "appeared to stop" because it did appear to stop to the untrained human eye( it's actually called a retrograde motion). The ancient author wrote what he observed from his knowledge base. BTW, great study on that thing called "The Star that Astonished the World".

Same with Joshua saying that "God stopped the sun" in Joshua. That's pre scientific ignorance, displayed by Jews and gentiles alike back then.
As I have already detailed several times, the actual physical, verified evidence proves Creation, and conclusively disproves both evolution and the immense time scales assumed by those who wish to make the impossibility of evolution seem plausible.

What the apostles said about "the inhabited earth" reflected their own understanding. God did not say it. But when Moses said the sun stopped, you either believe that God had the power to momentarily suspend the rotation of the earth, or else you call Moses a deliberate liar. That would be a sin. But the only sin charged to Moses was when he struck the rock contrary to God's instruction, and took credit for giving the people water and manna.

As always, there is the point where you either believe God, or you doubt God. There is no middle ground.

Why do so many people assume that nature has power over the God of nature? The earth rotates because God established that dynamic by His Word. Whatever God says CREATES reality itself. This is why the Scientific Method works--it is only because God ordains reality itself, that experimental results are repeatable, and natural laws do not arbitrarily change from moment to moment. The encouraging thing about this is that it means whenever God commands us to do anything, His biddings are enablings. The Ten Commandments themselves are promises of the kind of people He will make us be, if we are willing to make the free choices to accept each change along the way.

As for the Star of Bethlehem, many Christian scholars believe it was actually a distant gathering of angels, and had nothing to do with the stars of space. An assembly of angels was said to appear to some shepherds at the time of Christ's birth. Some people weak in faith have speculated that the Star of Bethlehem consisted of a conjunction of some planets, or whatever. Even though that would not have worked for very long.

Whatever the limitations of what ancient Bible writers knew, God did not have such limitations. When He wrote the fourth commandment with His own finger on tablets of stone, He, the Creator, said, "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day." (Exodus 20:11; NKJV) This was given as the reason why God ordained that the Sabbath should be kept as a memorial of Creation, on the seventh day of every week. This would make no sense if the days of Creation week were indefinite lengths of time. And the Sabbath was not just made for the Jews, since when God sanctified the seventh day, only Adam and Eve existed. No Jews. (See Genesis 2:2, 3) And Jesus said, "The Sabbath was made for man...." (Mark 2:27)--He did not say the Sabbath was made only for the Jews.

Peter also tells us that the prophets who wrote Scripture did not even always know or understand what they were writing: "Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you, searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow." (1 Peter 1:10, 11; NKJV)

Or consider the 22nd Psalm, which details the events and very thoughts Jesus would experience on the Cross, a thousand years before Calvary. None of those things ever happened to David. How profound it is that when Jesus was on the Cross, He was recalling that very Psalm as an encouragement to Himself, which is evidenced by the fact that He recited the first words of that Psalm: "My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?" (Matt. 27:46; Psalms 22:1; NKJV)!

You really limit yourself when you try to limit the power of God, as if by so doing you could bring down God to your own level. You do not make yourself appear to be wise, by indulging in such skepticism. You only reveal your weakness of doubting God. And you miss so much that is true wisdom.
Thread closed for getting off topic.
“Conservatism is only as good as what it conserves.” - Friedrich von Hayek -

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Biology News, Pt. 2 John L 38 9,942 08-19-2019, 08:49 AM
Last Post: JohnWho
  Biology can be evil mv 17 3,873 02-16-2010, 03:27 PM
Last Post: John L

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)