Here to see fun anti-bubbles, got technical science lesson on cell membranes. And a bit of a book shill. Cool circles, though.

Clearcoating this stuff would remove its blacker-than-black properties. It would then start to reflect light. At which point, why would you favor this expensive shit over regular paint? I haven't seen details on how the sprayable Vantablack is applied, but if it were mixed into a liquid for application, it would have the same problem, unless, somehow, the surface of the hardened material were burnt away, evaporated off, or chemically reduced so that the carbon material could protrude from the substrate, that may allow the light absorption properties to persist. But I don't know how they accomplish that, other than they say it's a complex process that requires a specialist. I still wouldn't try brushing up against it, just like I wouldn't try sitting there inhaling paint fumes after painting a car. There's a reason precautions are taken in that process as well. I just know that something small and damaging enough to burst cell membranes sounds like something I wouldn't want in a product I'm handling with direct contact with my skin, or with any remote possibility of it rubbing off and getting into the air.

Okay, the theory is that something mutates and creates something beneficial which then is selected to survive because it reproduces...well..how does natural selection choose for parts for components that dont exist and dont work? why would a creature with 1/40th of a working part be selected to survive so that it could get another part for a component that still doesnt work it just does not explain things like the flaggelums tail..thats what irreducible complexity is all about..there is no reason why flaggelums with a 10th an onboard tail motor would be selected to survive..just because each component could independently grow in some scenerio doesnt mean anything..no mutation for a non working part is beneficial..there would be no reason to continue on down that line or why the creature would survive in the first place.

another problem for evolution is that we can observe it in action..a generation of bacteria grows in no time..and at no time has there ever been observed one kind of bacteria mutating into another kind. we can test evolution this way..yes things mutate all the time..but they don't produce new kinds. not even once. so evolution is just not happening today

>> ^TheGenk:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Professor Edwin Conklin observed, "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop." or
Sir Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University stated that statistically the chances of one cell evolving was the same as a tornado passing through a junkyard and giving you a fully functional Boeing 747
it's just taken on faith that it happened, of course..but there isn't even a good theory for it. pea soup getting electrocuted a cell does not create. its just not plausible.
Those quotes are all true, but the fail on one point: They assume a very complex endproduct (Here: the unabridged dictionary, the boeing 747 and the cell). Which is simply false.
Arguments about the statistical chances of something happening being very unlikely when it demonstrably happened are moot.
I could use that to argue that statistically the chance of you being created from the genetic material of your parents is so small that therefore you could not possibly exist. But clearly you do.
I'll just address the last one:
No one claims that the fully formed cell was the first "life" to pop into existance. There are other more "primitive" forms which came first. I can't find the articles but I know of at least one which demonstrates how a less complex version of a cell membrane every cell enjoys today "creates itself" in a primordial soup like environment. Add the amino acids that form in the same environment and you got yourself a very primitive cell.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Professor Edwin Conklin observed, "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop." or
Sir Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University stated that statistically the chances of one cell evolving was the same as a tornado passing through a junkyard and giving you a fully functional Boeing 747
it's just taken on faith that it happened, of course..but there isn't even a good theory for it. pea soup getting electrocuted a cell does not create. its just not plausible.
Those quotes are all true, but the fail on one point: They assume a very complex endproduct (Here: the unabridged dictionary, the boeing 747 and the cell). Which is simply false.


Arguments about the statistical chances of something happening being very unlikely when it demonstrably happened are moot.
I could use that to argue that statistically the chance of you being created from the genetic material of your parents is so small that therefore you could not possibly exist. But clearly you do.

I'll just address the last one:
No one claims that the fully formed cell was the first "life" to pop into existance. There are other more "primitive" forms which came first. I can't find the articles but I know of at least one which demonstrates how a less complex version of a cell membrane every cell enjoys today "creates itself" in a primordial soup like environment. Add the amino acids that form in the same environment and you got yourself a very primitive cell.

thanks! I actually use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triton_X-100 , which can disrupt polar cell membranes basically by poking holes. This allows me to then add stuff into cells in the lab...

In reply to this comment by oxdottir:
nice comments!

In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
I guess I can put this in *science, now that I've dragged some nerdy language out on the comment board,

Drug induced sleep can be of two varieties, (1) "drug assisted" (mostly benzodiazepines, like lorazepam (Ativan), or imidazopyridines, like Zolpidem (Ambien), and (2) true "general anesthesia." Benzos assist sleep but because they are potent amnestics, one is less likely to remember a dream, even if you had one. Melatonin is not a benzo. It is an endogenous hormone, produced by the pineal gland. Melatonin is involved in regulating circadian rhythms, although it is not the main determinate. High doses of melatonin seem to be associated with more REM sleep and more dreaming.

"General Anesthesia" is not normal sleep and, rather, is unconsciousness produced by specific inhibition of neuronal communication (synapsis), whether by inactivation of protein channels on cell membranes, or by inhibition of GABA receptors, (a neurotransmitter). Deep levels of general anesthesia can flat-line your EEG, meaning your brain is totally shut down and is doing no synaptic work at all.
However, people may do normal sleeping after recovery from general anesthesia and they do occasionally relate dreaming during the period of recovery. In particular, the sedative/anesthetic Propofol is associated with some "erotic" dreaming and I have had some people relate rather vivid and interesting content. I had one older gentlemen who wanted to be put "back to sleep" so he could continue his "relations" with Gina Lollibrigida.

We freeze living cells in liquid nitrogen all the time in the lab, but that's just cells, and about half of them die in the process. 10% die in the best cases, if you do it just right. 10% of a whole human dead means dead human. Ironically a very slow freezing process gets you the best results, unlike our lovely sci-fi. And, when you freeze cells water crystals...and other crystals form quickly and neurons are amazingly fragile. I've worked with them in culture and honestly if you look at them funny, the axons break. Also, even at -140C (which is the best we happen to have in the lab, that is liquid nitrogen, I don't know how they're getting -195??) the cells die over time. I'd put the half-life at around 10 years at that temp, and that is soaked in DMSO, which is an... unpleasant chemical to be dipped in. heh.
You will probably see ships traveling at relativistic speeds before you see cryo working. Save your money for Ender's method.

Oh I think one more thing that I should mention is that we happen to use rapid freeze-thawing in the lab to destroy cell membranes. lol. Freeze-thaws are a great way to wreck cells and fast.

Anyway I will tragically laugh when these 2 companies tank and their frozen bodies have to be disposed of.

and lol@commercials.

I have not read the entire thread (though it looks really good). That said, I have but two words - emergent properties.

Ok, more than two, but only as examples:

A handful of molecules combine and have the emergent property of attracting and binding a complementary set of molecules.

A cell membrane has the emergent property of maintaining a voltage differential.

(... many, many steps later ...)

A very large group of cells has the emergent property of representing a completely arbitrary group of other cells (memory).

A humongously large number of cells have the emergent property of representing arbitrary states of another large group of cells (prediction).

An absurdly large group of cells have the emergent property of representing themselves (awareness).

It goes on from there, but that's pretty much how I see it.