Since you've tagged coronavirus it's worth noting that (as far as I know) soap breaks down the oily lipid membrane and actively kills the virus, whereas with bacteria - which is what this video's testing for - the soap usually just drags them off your hands and down the sink.

Hence the whole 'wash with soap for 20 seconds' thing relating to this outbreak.

They need to start scooping those things into vaccums and throwing them into a drum to roast the fuckers and start having termite-eating contests and shit.

The thought crossed my mind so i did some light googling and actually, yes they're edible and apparently they're very nutritious.

https://www.omicsonline.org/chemical-analysis-of-an-edible-african-termite-2161-1009.1000105.php?aid=3346

Nutrient Composition (%)
Protein 20.94±0.08
Lipid 34.23±0.83
Ash 7.60±0.33
Moisture 10.78 ± 0.02
Crude fibre 5.71± 0.01
Carbohydrate 20.74±0.00

Nutrient Composition (%)
Protein 20.94±0.08
Lipid 34.23±0.83
Ash 7.60±0.33
Moisture 10.78 ± 0.02
Crude fibre 5.71± 0.01
Carbohydrate 20.74±0.00

Vitamins Composition (mg/100g)
Vitamin A 0.35 ± 0.00
Vitamin C 17.76 ± 1.60
Riboflavin 1.56 ± 0.02
Thiamin 0.67 ± 0.04
Niacin 2.74 ± 0.02

Like I am genuinely floored right now at how nutritious these things are.

Eating fish and poultry at least twice a week is conspicuously left off the Mediterranean Diet list here.

Fatty fish — such as mackerel, lake trout, herring, sardines, albacore tuna and salmon — are rich sources of omega-3 fatty acids. Fish is eaten on a regular basis in the Mediterranean diet.

Seems from everything I see, seafood seems to be pretty predominant in Japanese diet intake, the other diet he mentioned in comparison.

So, I figured, let me look up some info on the Dr. presenting here. Neal Barnard is a well known Vegan and founding president of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.

Intriguing, no? Then I looked up the PCRM he is the founding president of (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicians_Committee_for_Responsible_Medicine). OMG, they just happen to be a non-profit research and advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C., which promotes a vegan diet, preventive medicine, and alternatives to animal research, and encourages what it describes as "higher standards of ethics and effectiveness in research." Its tax filing shows its activities as "prevention of cruelty to animals."

So it is a combination of a Vegan diet promotional group AND PETA. It also seems that they don't mind omitting parts of 'competing' diets to promote their own. Basically this is the equivalent of a organization like Atkins having a doctor like Iris Shai, RD, PhD, show that a low-carbohydrate diet like Atkins had a more favorable effect on blood lipid levels than both the Mediterranean diet or a low–fat diet.

Obviously she must be right, she is a doctor and other doctors support her. So this must mean all the other doctors and diets are wrong, including this one, right?

I'm calling this *propaganda, sorry.

It is binary at one stage of processing. when a neuron has enough input it fires an action potential which is a binary one or zero. that then gets "read" by the synaptic terminal and turns back into an analog signal to a "post synaptic" neuron.
As you said, how this signal is then processed by the next neuron depends on a lot of factors including the effects of other neurons. Synaptic strength refers to the amount of electricity the post synaptic neuron sees given this binary 1 or 0 and is often measured at rest. However, if other neurons are firing it can go up or down, amplifying or shrinking it by activating other voltage sensitive ion channels or by increasing the conductance across the lipid bilayer of the cell so that the electricity leaks out of the dendrite of the neuron before it is processed at the soma (the cell body where a new action potential can be generated)

Unfortunately...

http://www.joslin.org/info/correcting_internet_myths_about_aspartame.html

The whole "sweet taste tricks your body in to releasing insulin" is complete bunk. A simple glucose tolerance test would show if pancreatic hormone secretion was elevated due to aspartame ingestion...

Oh look!

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3522147

A nutritive sweetener, aspartame (L-aspartyl-L-phenylalanine methylester) was administered orally to normal controls and diabetic patients in order to evaluate effects on blood glucose, lipids and pancreatic hormone secretion. An oral glucose tolerance test was also performed in the same subjects as a control study of aspartame administration. In 7 normal controls and 22 untreated diabetics, a single dose of 500 mg aspartame, equivalent to 100 g glucose in sweetness, induced no increase in blood glucose concentration. Rather, a small but significant decrease in blood glucose was noticed 2 or 3 h after administration. The decrease in blood glucose was found to be smallest in the control and became greater as the diabetes increased in severity. No significant change in blood insulin or glucagon concentration during a 3-h period was observed in either the controls or the diabetics. The second study was designed to determine the effects of 2 weeks' continuous administration of 125 mg aspartame, equal in sweetness to the mean daily consumption of sugar (20-30 g) in Japan, to 9 hospitalized diabetics with steady-state glycemic control. The glucose tolerance showed no significant change after 2 weeks' administration. Fasting, 1 h and 2 h postprandial blood glucose, blood cholesterol, triglyceride and HDL-cholesterol were also unaffected. From these and other published results, aspartame would seem to be a useful alternative nutrient sweetener for patients with diabetes mellitus.

Yes, phosphoric acid isn't great for your teeth, and yes, it's better to drink water, but the majority of the blurb against diet type low calorie sweeteners start with conspiracy theorists and nuts who believe you can cure cancer with herbal teas.

Sorry poster, no upvote for blatant misinformation.

TONS of things cure cancer. All day, every day. Doctors have no clue what cancer is. All they can do is cut, burn, or poison and cross their fingers.

I didn't say Cannabis was THE cure. It is A cure used by thousands with amazing efficacy. Everyone is different.

Here's 60+ studies for your perusal if you insist on the superiority of western scientific research:

"Cannabis, and the cannabinoid compounds found within it, has been shown through a large cannabisplantamount of scientific, peer-reviewed research to be effective at treating a wide variety of cancers, ranging from brain cancer to colon cancer. Below is a list of over 60 studies that demonstrate the vast anti-cancer properties of cannabis.
Studies showing cannabis may combat brain cancer:
Cannabidiol (CBD) inhibits the proliferation and invasion in U87-MG and T98G glioma cells. Study published in the Public Library of Science journal in October 2013.
Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) can kill cancer cells by causing them to self-digest. Study published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation in September 2013.
CBD is a novel therapeutic target against glioblastoma. Study published in Cancer Research in March 2013.
Local delivery of cannabinoid-filled microparticles inhibits tumor growth in a model of glioblastoma multiforme. Study published in Public Library of Science in January 2013.
Cannabinoid action inhibits the growth of malignant human glioma U87MG cells. Study published in Oncology Reports in July 2012.
Cannabidiol enhances the inhibitory effects of THC on human glioblastoma cell proliferation and survival. Study published in the Molecular Cancer Therapeutics journal in January 2010.
Cannabinoid action induces autophagy-mediated cell death in human glioma cells. Study published in The Journal of Clinical Investigation in May 2009.
Cannabinoids inhibit glioma cell invasion by down-regulating matrix metalloproteinase-2 expression. Study published in Cancer Research in March 2008.
Cannabinoids and gliomas. Study published in Molecular Neurobiology in June 2007.
Cannabinoids inhibit gliomagenesis. Study published in the Journal of Biological Chemistry in March 2007.
A pilot clinical study of THC in patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. The results were published in the British Journal of Cancer in June 2006.
Cannabidiol inhibits human glioma cell migration through an independent cannabinoid receptor mechanism. Study published in the British Journal of Pharmacology in April 2005.
Cannabinoids inhibit the vascular endothelial growth factor pathway (VEGF) in gliomas. Study published in the Journal of Cancer Research in August 2004.
Antitumor effects of cannabidiol, a nonpsychoactive cannabinoid, on human glioma cell lines. Study published in the Journal of Pharmacology in November 2003.
Inhibition of glioma growth in vivo by selective activation of the CB2 cannabinoid receptor. Study published in the Journal of Cancer Research in August 2001.
Studies showing cannabis may combat colorectal cancer:
Cannabigerol (CBG) can inhibit colon cancer cells. Study published in the Oxford journal Carcinogenesis in October 2014.
Inhibition of colon carcinogenesis by a standardised Cannabis Sativa extract with high content of CBD. Study published in Phytomedecine in December 2013.
Chemopreventive effect of the non-psychotropic phytocannabinoid CBD on colon cancer. Study published in the Journal of Molecular Medecine in August 2012.
Cannabinoids against intestinal inflammation and cancer. Study published in Pharmacology Research in August 2009.
Action of cannabinoid receptors on colorectal tumor growth. Study published by the Cancer Center of the University of Texas in July 2008.
Studies showing cannabis may combat blood cancer:
The effects of cannabidiol and its synergism with bortezomib in multiple myeloma cell lines. Study published in the International Journal of Cancer in December 2013.
Enhancing the activity of CBD and other cannabinoids against leukaemia. Study published in Anticancer Research in October 2013.
Cannabis extract treatment for terminal acute lymphoblastic leukemia of Philadelphia chromosome (Ph1). Study published in Case Reports in Oncology in September 2013.
Expression of type 1 and type 2 cannabinoid receptors in lymphoma. Study published in the International Journal of Cancer in June 2008.
Cannabinoid action in mantle cell lymphoma. Study published in Molecular Pharmacology in November 2006.
THC-induced apoptosis in Jurkat leukemia. Study published in Molecular Cancer Research in August 2006.
Targeting CB2 cannabinoid receptors as a novel therapy to treat malignant lymphoblastic disease. Study published in Blood American Society of Hemmatology in July 2002.
Studies showing cannabis can combat lung cancer:
Cannabinoids increase lung cancer cell lysis by lymphokine-activated killer cells via upregulation of Icam-1. Study published in Biochemical Pharmacology in July 2014.
Cannabinoids inhibit angiogenic capacities of endothelial cells via release of tissue inhibitor of matrix metalloproteinases-1 from lung cancer cells. Study published in Biochemical Pharmacology in June 2014.
COX-2 and PPAR-γ confer CBD-induced apoptosis of human lung cancer cells. Study published in Molecular Cancer Therapeutics in January 2013.
CBD inhibits lung cancer cell invasion and metastasis via intercellular adhesion molecule-1. Study published in the Journal of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology in April 2012.
Cannabinoid receptors, CB1 and CB2, as novel targets for inhibition of non–small cell lung cancer growth and metastasis. Study published in Cancer Prevention Research in January 2011.
THC inhibits epithelial growth factor-induced (EGF) lung cancer cell migration in vitro as well as its growth and metastasis in vivo. Study published in the journal Oncogene in July 2007.
Studies showing cannabis may combat stomach cancer:
Cannabinoid receptor agonist as an alternative drug in 5-Fluorouracil-resistant gastric cancer cells. Study published in Anticancer Research in June 2013.
Antiproliferative mechanism of a cannabinoid agonist by cell cycle arrest in human gastric cancer cells. Study published in the Journal of Cellular Biochemistry in March 2011.
Studies showing cannabis may combat prostrate cancer:
Cannabinoids can treat prostate cancer. Study published by the National Institute of Health in October 2013.
Non-THC cannabinoids inhibit prostate carcinoma growth in vitro and in vivo: pro-apoptotic effects and underlying mechanisms. Study published in the British Journal of Pharmacology in December 2012.
The role of cannabinoids in prostate cancer: Basic science perspective and potential clinical applications. Study published in the Indian Journal of Urology in January 2012.
Induction of apoptosis by cannabinoids in prostate and colon cancer cells is phosphatase dependent. Study published in Anticancer Research in November 2011.
Studies showing cannabis may combat liver cancer:
Involvement of PPARγ in the antitumoral action of cannabinoids on hepatocellular carcinoma (CHC). Study published in Cell Death and Disease in May 2013.
Evaluation of anti-invasion effect of cannabinoids on human hepatocarcinoma cells. Study published on the site Informa Healthcare in February 2013.
Antitumoral action of cannabinoids on hepatocellular carcinoma. Study published in Cell Death and Differentiation in April 2011.
Studies showing cannabis may combat pancreatic cancer:
Cannabinoids inhibit energetic metabolism and induce autophagy in pancreatic cancer cells. Study published in Cell Death and Disease in June 2013.
Cannabinoids Induce apoptosis of pancreatic tumor cells. Study published in Cancer Research in July 2006.
Studies showing cannabis may combat skin cancer:
Cannabinoid receptor activiation can combat skin cancer. Study published by the National Institute of Health in October 2013.
Cannabinoids were found to reduce skin cancer by 90% in just 2 weeks. Study published in the Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology in July 2013.
Cannabinoid receptors as novel targets for the treatment of melanoma. Study published in the Journal of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology in December 2006.
Inhibition of skin tumor growth and angiogenesis in vivo by activation of cannabinoid receptors. Study published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation, in January 2003.
Studies showing cannabis may combat other types of cancer:
Bladder: Marijuana reduces the risk of bladder cancer. Study published in the Medscape site in May 2013.
Kaposi sarcoma: Cannabidiol inhibits growth and induces programmed cell death in Kaposi sarcoma–associated herpesvirus-infected endothelium. Study published in the journal Genes & Cancer in July 2012.
Nose, mouth, throat, ear: Cannabinoids like THC inhibit cellular respiration of human oral cancer cells. Study by the Department of Pediatrics at the State University of New York, published in June 2010.
Bile duct: The dual effects of THC on cholangiocarcinoma cells: anti-invasion activity at low concentration and apoptosis induction at high concentration. Study published in Cancer Investigation in May 2010.
Ovaries: Cannabinoid receptors as a target for therapy of ovarian cancer. Study published on the American Association for Cancer Research website in 2006.
Preparation and characterisation of biodegradable microparticles filled with THC and their antitumor efficacy on cancer cell lines. Study published in the Journal of Drug Targeting in September 2013.
CBD Cannabidiol as a potential anticancer drug. Study published in the British Journal of Pharmacology in February 2013.
Cannabinoids as anticancer modulators. Study published in the Progress in Lipid Research journal in January 2013.
CBD inhibits angiogenesis by multiple mechanisms. Study published in the British Journal of Pharmacology in November 2012.
Towards the use of cannabinoids as antitumour agents. Study published in Nature in June 2012.
Cannabinoid-associated cell death mechanisms in tumor models. Study published in the International Journal of Oncology in May 2012.
Cannabinoids, endocannabinoids and cancer. Study published in Cancer Metastasis Reviews in December 2011.
The endocannabinoid system and cancer: therapeutic implication. Study published in the British Journal of Pharmacology in July 2011.
This list was compiled in part by Alchimiaweb.com.
– TheJointBlog"

Lipids.

Sorry it took so long to respond, I had a busy weekend.

They are not simple probabilistic events, and they are operating off the same basic principles, that does not mean that systems do not have qualities which their component parts lack.

Does a piston have the capacity to convert petrol into kinetic energy? Does an internal combustion engine have this capacity? Which part of the engine imbues it with this power?

Systems are qualitatively different from their component parts, and some sets of systems, such as systems which decide, are qualitatively different from systems which don't

I'm going to need a definition of "decide" I suppose. It seems like you are dancing around these squishy intuitive concepts instead of having a specific physical distinction to point out. The amoeboid is composed of a lipid bilayer membrane riddled with intricate protein micro-machines that detect changes in the environment, and behaviorally compensate. To discount the intricacy of the mechanisms of genetic expression and chemical signaling that exist even in the simplest of eukaryotic organism is foolish IMHO. Many of the modern models of genetic expression, and compensation for environmental factors look strikingly similar to the connectionist network models of the brain. The computations are similar in the abstract.


You are anthropomorphizing the mold, it does move, this motion increases its chances of finding food, it survives/reproduces. It in no way displays evidence of doing any of this "in order" to accomplish some goal. If you want to suggest that evolution, as a system, displays intelligence, by selecting molds which move in certain ways, I would be willing to acknowledge that intelligence, not a consciousness, but an intelligence.

Well, more likely I'm moldopomorphizing us. What goals do we have that are ultimately distinct from survival, reproduction, and the general continuity of our species? Even something as seemingly unrelated as making music, or art could be cast as some sort of mating ritual. When you somehow separate our behavior from the rest of life on Earth it's as though you want to draw a barrier between us and them. You want to somehow separate us from the natural order. I hate to break it to you, but it just isn't so. We are just demonstrate the spatial heterogeneity of the second law of thermodynamics.


Why is context necessary for experience? What do you experience in infinitesimal time? Why should we posit some sort of experience which is entirely distinct from the type we claim to have?

I experience the moment. In fact, that's all I'm ever experiencing, although my sensation of it may run a little behind. I never experience my memory, I merely compare my experience to memory. Further, what I'm suggesting is not entirely distinct from any experience we claim to have. Some autistic individuals, for instance, report an extremely chaotic existence, in which causal models can't be formed as sensory modalities are not unified in the same way as ours. They are experienced as independent inputs, not reflective of a coherent physical world. Still, they experience it.

Physical laws are not obeyed, they are enforced. electron movements are completely deterministic, like billiard balls, they roll down hill, they don't decide if/when to do so.

Things can not be enforced without an enforcer. Further, as you've conceded the determinism of our brains, again, how are we not passively allowing the laws of nature to push us around? What exactly are we deciding?


I don't believe that you are claiming that electrons have tiny field sensors which feed into a neural network which analyzes them for patterns and then attributes meaning to them by comparing them to earlier similar sensation patterns. Perhaps you can state this more clearly.

No, I believe that by some other physical mechanism, likely involving quarks and particle physics that I admittedly have a poor understanding of, the electron receives information from not immediately proximal locations, and physically displaces itself to a location with more desirable properties given its current energy state. I don't see how that's different than cuddling up to a warm fire.


You seem to be positing that the structure of the universe is not topological, but that it is instead the consequence of 10^80 atoms all working on concert to decide what the laws of the universe are at this moment. If this is your thesis I am inclined to ask on what basis you think it is even vaguely likely that they would came to a consensus, such as they must to allow the functioning of a universe like ours.

Something like that , although I still don't like the word decide. I don't necessarily think they do come to a consensus. It's just that, as with an attractor network, or similar guaranteed convergence dynamical systems, certain macroscopic states are just more likely than others, despite chaos at the subordinate level. The reason I'd rather drop the word decide is because I don't necessarily want to open the door to something like free will. To cast it in a "God" metaphor, I imagine more of an omniscient God, than an omnipotent God.


Please provide some basis to believe that there is a phenomenal experience.

I can't other than to refer you to what I presume you to have. I could suggest focussing on your breathing, or what have you. I can point you towards literature showing that people that claim to focus on their consciousness can perform physical feats not previous considered possible (for instance monks rewriting the books on the physical tolerance of the human body to cold). Otherwise, I can't. I will say this, however, I take it to be the atomic element of inductive reason. The natural "laws" you are taking as primary are secondary. There is a simple reason for this as Alfred North Whitehead pointed out. If suddenly we were to observe all bits of matter floating away from one another, and were to confirm we were not hallucinating, and perhaps have the experience corroborated by our colleagues, it would not be the experience which was wrong, it would be the laws of nature. Experience has primacy. Matter is merely the logical consequence of applying induction to our particular set of shared experiences.


And that will persist as long as we are not talking about anything. You say "X exists". I say "What is X?". You say "You can't disprove X". And here we are talking about nothing.

I told you, in the best english I can, what X is. It's the qualia of phenomenal experience. Now I can't provide you with direct evidence for it, but I can tell you that nearly everyone I talk to has some sense of what I mean.


You must be using an alternate form of the word "believe". How can someone believe something, and simultaneously be completely unwilling to assert that it is a fact?

I take the Bayesian sense of the word. All probabilities are subjective degrees of belief. I adopt this degree of belief based on anecdotal experience and generalizations therein. None of this would be accepted as evidence by any reviewer, nor should it, and thus I wouldn't want to risk my credibility by asserting it as fact. I can believe some hypotheses to be more likely than others on the basis of no evidence, and in fact do all the time. That's how I, and all other scientists, decide what experiment to run next. I should not, however, expect you to believe me a priori, as you may operate on different axioms, and draw from different anecdotal experience. Thus, I would not feel compelled to assert my beliefs as fact, other than in so far as they are, in fact, my beliefs.

I believe that Tay-Sachs disease, which causes immense pain and agony by clogging nerve tissue with lipids until the five-year-old child finally dies, is part of the plan. Especially since God gives it mainly to his Chosen People.

I also believe the Plan is FUNDAMENTALLY FUCKED UP.

I believe.

See, I don't mind that you believe. Humans believe many things. What I don't understand is how they can believe that everything is part of a divine plan. And when something doesn't make sense, they shrug it off and say, "Well, I don't get it, but God's higher than I am, so I guess he has some reason."

That is devolved thinking, capable only in the mind of unenlightened beings. No rational and reasonable person could ever think that something as horrifying as Tay-Sachs could ever be included in the plan of a benevolent higher being.

If anyone thinks that any debilitating disease has any place in the plan of an omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient higher being, that person is deluded and WRONG.

It's not the idea of God that bothers me, it's the idea of a loving God who would allow us to live in this world.

>> ^Dignant_Pink:
i'm a devout catholic. i believe in god and his son jesus. i believe that everything that happens, good or bad, is, to quote the joker, "all part of the plan." i dont presume to know that plan, but i believe there is one.
and yet i upvoted. why? because it's funny. too many times, atheists (and i'm not saying all atheists. i'm not bigoted.) expect us to respect them while at the same time, insulting our religion. (yes i realize that catholics do this too, but not all of us. thats the same problem) none of them seem to realize that religion is just one of someone's defining characteristics. god i'm sick of the God/no God debate. why can't people believe what they want?

Have a friend that was having a major manipulation done to her shoulder, sort of a pre-surgery relocation or something that entailed the doc putting his knee in her chest and tugging or whatnot. They gave her a drug, I think maybe orally administered that allowed her to be sentient and conversant and cooperative, but she didn't remember a thing. Struck me as something from a science fiction movie or spy thriller. I think it also dulled the pain, but I remember thinking "if you caused a lot of pain to the patient, but they don't remember it, were they ever in pain" I don't remember what it was called. Forgettitol^tm? [edit:] It's called Versed.

In reply to this comment by snoozedoctor:
No, general anesthesia is not like physiologic sleep, the latter being a complex and active function of neurons located in the brain stem, in and around the thalamus. If you are unlucky enough, a small stroke in this area, while not damaging a significant portion of the brain, can result in permanent coma.

For an interesting sleep disorder, look up fatal familial insomnia. It's rare, and one you don't want to get.

The mechanisms of the some of the general anesthetics are still unknown. For instance, we don't know how the most widely used ones, the halogenated hydrocarbon gases, (halothane, isoflurane, sevoflurane, etc.) have their effect. Their potency is significantly related to their lipid solubility, which suggests they get in your neural cell lipid membranes, and alter them (temporarily) such that they can't carry on communication with other neurons. They've been used for 150 years now, and we still don't know exactly how they work!
Many of the IV anesthetics inhibit specific receptors and antagonize specific neurotransmitters, such that we do know how most of them work.

Cheers,

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
No, I don't have that kind of depth of knowledge. Sleep and dreams are so mysterious and fascinating, though. Is anesthesia anything like sleep, or nothing at all? Does a patient have REM under the gas?

In reply to this comment by snoozedoctor:
Watched this last night and forgot to upvote. I was diverted by looking for video of the goats with the myotonia, undoubtedly a similar phenomena. Alas, there was already a similar sift, so I dropped it. You ARE going medical on us.

No, general anesthesia is not like physiologic sleep, the latter being a complex and active function of neurons located in the brain stem, in and around the thalamus. If you are unlucky enough, a small stroke in this area, while not damaging a significant portion of the brain, can result in permanent coma.

For an interesting sleep disorder, look up fatal familial insomnia. It's rare, and one you don't want to get.

The mechanisms of the some of the general anesthetics are still unknown. For instance, we don't know how the most widely used ones, the halogenated hydrocarbon gases, (halothane, isoflurane, sevoflurane, etc.) have their effect. Their potency is significantly related to their lipid solubility, which suggests they get in your neural cell lipid membranes, and alter them (temporarily) such that they can't carry on communication with other neurons. They've been used for 150 years now, and we still don't know exactly how they work!
Many of the IV anesthetics inhibit specific receptors and antagonize specific neurotransmitters, such that we do know how most of them work.

Cheers,

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
No, I don't have that kind of depth of knowledge. Sleep and dreams are so mysterious and fascinating, though. Is anesthesia anything like sleep, or nothing at all? Does a patient have REM under the gas?

In reply to this comment by snoozedoctor:
Watched this last night and forgot to upvote. I was diverted by looking for video of the goats with the myotonia, undoubtedly a similar phenomena. Alas, there was already a similar sift, so I dropped it. You ARE going medical on us.

>> ^MycroftHomlz:
That's really not how you want to do it...
Put it in the butter. Then strain out the remnants...
Or so I have heard.


You can do it both ways, your way is just more efficient. Since THC is highly soluble in lipids, you can also do it with oil or other similar substances.

Bluecliff: Where he is, is not the question, If he is, is the question. Aside from that did you even watch the movie, and thoroughly read the posts?

Cryptographix: said "Proteins, lipids, and carbohydrates react naturally via well understood physical and chemical processes...in a similar way to how hydrogen reacts with oxygen to produce water."
-my point was not that they do not react you fool, it was that they do not constitute life... therefore are utilized irrelevantly Throughout the ENTIRE VIDEO'S METAPHOR (which im not sure you watched).

-Cryptographix "those combinations form what we now know as complex life...from certain combinations that stay together in certain environments further combining with other combinations...on and on, through time."
What you describe directly above is called luck. The theory of evolution DOES NOT APPLY TO ENTITIES LACKING DNA or RNA! such as phospho-lipids or proteins

-most scientists agree the first basic cell was infinitely more complex than a simple, singular chemical process. Take Bio 310 in your first year of university.

Peroxide: Proteins, lipids, and carbohydrates react naturally via well understood physical and chemical processes...in a similar way to how hydrogen reacts with oxygen to produce water.

Certain combinations of proteins, lipids, and carbohydrates have the ability to stay CONNECTED in various environments, more than other combinations do. Eventually(over maybe, I don't know - a couple million years maybe?), those combinations form what we now know as complex life...from certain combinations that stay together in certain environments further combining with other combinations...on and on, through time.

bluecliff: The clockmaker was hired by Wal-Mart to make molds of the parts he used to produce by hand, and work closely with a programmer to program robots to put together the parts to make a watch. The clockmaker mysteriously died six days after receiving his royalty check from Wal-Mart, and Wal-Mart shipped the entire factory they had sponsored the building of, and set of robots to China.

The humans working in the original factory that made the watches were offered a job in the Chinese factory provided they could relocate to China on their own. None having the ability to do so, their Union tried to make a deal with Wal-Mart Inc. and they were all offered jobs at the new Wal-Mart stores that would open up in their area within the next four to six weeks. Their cost is now $5.50 per hour and their vocabulary has improved from Engineering/Machining terms to "Welcome to Wal-Mart, Sir or Ma'am."

Wal-Mart looks forward to your assimilation, as well.

END TRANSMISSION

"Because clocks are not alive, Think about it..."

OMG

Proteins, lipids and carbohydrates are not alive either, and unlike a pendulum which when created serves to tell time better, a protein attached to a lipid does not have a better chance of staying alive, BECAUSE ITS NOT ALIVE TO BEGIN WITH!

So the movie contradicts itself claiming that it does not address the beginnings or ID or the probiotic soup theory. With reference to ShakaUVM's comment about the intelligent design involved in the programming, he is right, Natural selection is a design, don't let the name fool you its a natural process, as Djsunkid says, but that does not in the least render it designless.

All this further serves to support my theory that this video is "fun" and has some "great music" But proves shit all. Maybe ill write some code and take three whole entire days to compile a scientific proof that this video is retarded. (even though i voted for it, he he)

-P.S. djsunkid, lay off the E, your counterargument does not discredit ShakaUVM's argument in the least, you just run off on another tangent. Oops i think i just flamed...