You should apply for one of those Micro Loans and live The American Dream Bushi just like your Boss

If all you guys got together and done exactly the same work as you do now you would reap all the profit.

Lovely example of worker power here in Ireland recently.

An Hotel that was on the market for 5million Euros at the height of false economy madness was recently bought for 650,000 by the entire workforce cutting out the wiseguys

the minority are the very, very rich who control things like politics, the media etc, the majority are the rest of us the 99 per cent... Do you see the world outside of the U.S.A ?

The price of food rises and the rich buy land in under-developed countries.


The pace at which investors in richer countries have been buying farmland in developing nations has slowed with the fall in food prices this year from peaks hit in 2008, United Nations farming experts said on Tuesday.

The surge in food prices fuelled large-scale purchases of farmland by rich countries including Gulf Arab states, a trend that drew criticism for harming the interests of local people.

Capitalism/Corporatism/Fascism/


Makes no difference what you call it.

Democracy equals thae majority benefits capitalism means the minority benefits.

So why then do the people who have more wealth control the political system ?

I thought Peter was trying to imply a similarity between the Rife device and other tools. That was just a guess.

Rife claimed to have documented a "Mortal Oscillatory Rate" for various pathogenic organisms, and to be able to destroy the organisms by vibrating them at this particular rate. According to the San Diego Evening Tribune in 1938, Rife stopped short of claiming that he could cure cancer, but did argue that he could "devitalize disease organisms" in living tissue, "with certain exceptions".[4]

On page 19 I twice acknowledged that beneficial mutations do occur and was the first to bring up the "Duffy gene", the gene that protects Africans from malaria. However these nearly alway involve loss of function in certain genes, as in all 3 of the examples mentioned by you.

For single cell organisms of about 1000 genes to evolve to complex organisms of about 32000 genes (humans) requires continuous beneficial increases to the number of genes, evolving MORE functional genes than before, not less. This has been my point this whole thread, molecular biology reveals reduced functional genes over time (sometimes usefully), not increased functional genes.

Promotion of genetic variation

August Weismann proposed in 1889[9] an explanation for the evolution of sex, where the advantage of sex is the creation of variation among siblings. It was then subsequently explained in genetics terms by Fisher[10] and Muller[11] and has been recently summarised by Burt in 2000.[12]

George C. Williams gave an example based around the elm tree. In the forest of this example, empty patches between trees can support one individual each. When a patch becomes available because of the death of a tree, other trees' seeds will compete to fill the patch. Since the chance of a seed's success in occupying the patch depends upon its genotype, and a parent cannot anticipate which genotype is most successful, each parent will send many seeds, creating competition between siblings. Natural selection therefore favours parents which can produce a variety of offspring.

A similar hypothesis is named the tangled bank hypothesis after a passage in Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species:

"It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us."

The hypothesis, proposed by Michael Ghiselin in his 1974 book, The Economy of Nature and the Evolution of Sex, suggests that a diverse set of siblings may be able to extract more food from its environment than a clone, because each sibling uses a slightly different niche. One of the main proponents of this hypothesis is Graham Bell of McGill University. The hypothesis has been criticised for failing to explain how asexual species developed sexes. In his book, Evolution and Human Behavior (MIT Press, 2000), John Cartwright comments:

"Although once popular, the tangled bank hypothesis now seems to face many problems, and former adherents are falling away. The theory would predict a greater interest in sex among animals that produce lots of small offspring that compete with each other. In fact, sex is invariably associated with organisms that produce a few large offspring, whereas organisms producing small offspring frequently engage in parthenogenesis [asexual reproduction]. In addition, the evidence from fossils suggests that species go for vast periods of [geologic] time without changing much."

Spread of advantageous traits
Novel genotypes
This diagram illustrates how sex might create novel genotypes more rapidly. Two advantageous alleles A and B occur at random. The two alleles are recombined rapidly in a sexual population (top), but in an asexual population (bottom) the two alleles must independently arise because of clonal interference.



Sex could be a method by which novel genotypes are created. Since sex combines genes from two individuals, sexually reproducing populations can more easily combine advantageous genes than can asexual populations. If, in a sexual population, two different advantageous alleles arise at different loci on a chromosome in different members of the population, a chromosome containing the two advantageous alleles can be produced within a few generations by recombination. However, should the same two alleles arise in different members of an asexual population, the only way that one chromosome can develop the other allele is to independently gain the same mutation, which would take much longer.

Ronald Fisher also suggested that sex might facilitate the spread of advantageous genes by allowing them to escape their genetic surroundings, if they should arise on a chromosome with deleterious genes.

Supporters of these theories respond to the balance argument that the individuals produced by sexual and asexual reproduction may differ in other respects too – which may influence the persistence of sexuality. For example, in water fleas of the genus Cladocera, sexual offspring form eggs which are better able to survive the winter.
Increased resistance to parasites

One of the most widely accepted theories to explain the persistence of sex is that it is maintained to assist sexual individuals in resisting parasites, also known as the Red Queen's Hypothesis.[8][13][14]

When an environment changes, previously neutral or deleterious alleles can become favourable. If the environment changed sufficiently rapidly (i.e. between generations), these changes in the environment can make sex advantageous for the individual. Such rapid changes in environment are caused by the co-evolution between hosts and parasites.

Imagine, for example that there is one gene in parasites with two alleles p and P conferring two types of parasitic ability, and one gene in hosts with two alleles h and H, conferring two types of parasite resistance, such that parasites with allele p can attach themselves to hosts with the allele h, and P to H. Such a situation will lead to cyclic changes in allele frequency - as p increases in frequency, h will be disfavoured.

In reality, there will be several genes involved in the relationship between hosts and parasites. In an asexual population of hosts, offspring will only have the different parasitic resistance if a mutation arises. In a sexual population of hosts, however, offspring will have a new combination of parasitic resistance alleles.

In other words, like Lewis Carroll's Red Queen, sexual hosts are continually adapting in order to stay ahead of their parasites.

Evidence for this explanation for the evolution of sex is provided by comparison of the rate of molecular evolution of genes for kinases and immunoglobulins in the immune system with genes coding other proteins. The genes coding for immune system proteins evolve considerably faster.[15][16]

Further evidence for the Red Queen hypothesis were provided by observing long‐term dynamics and parasite coevolution in a “mixed” (sexual and asexual) population of snails (Potamopyrgus antipodarum). The number of sexuals, the number asexuals, and the rates of parasite infection for both were monitored. It was found that clones that were plentiful at the beginning of the study became more susceptible to parasites over time. As parasite infections increased, the once plentiful clones dwindled dramatically in number. Some clonal types disappeared entirely. Meanwhile, sexual snail populations remained much more stable over time.[17][18]

In 2011, researchers used the microscopic roundworm Caenorhabditis elegans as a host and the pathogenic bacteria Serratia marcescens to generate a host-parasite coevolutionary system in a controlled environment, allowing them to conduct more than 70 evolution experiments testing the Red Queen Hypothesis. They genetically manipulated the mating system of C. elegans, causing populations to mate either sexually, by self-fertilization, or a mixture of both within the same population. Then they exposed those populations to the S. marcescens parasite. It was found that the self-fertilizing populations of C. elegans were rapidly driven extinct by the coevolving parasites while sex allowed populations to keep pace with their parasites, a result consistent with the Red Queen Hypothesis.[19][20]

Critics of the Red Queen hypothesis question whether the constantly-changing environment of hosts and parasites is sufficiently common to explain the evolution of sex.[citation needed]
Deleterious mutation clearance

Mutations can have many different effects upon an organism. It is generally believed that the majority of non-neutral mutations are deleterious, which means that they will cause a decrease in the organism's overall fitness.[21] If a mutation has a deleterious effect, it will then usually be removed from the population by the process of natural selection. Sexual reproduction is believed to be more efficient than asexual reproduction in removing those mutations from the genome.[22]

There are two main hypotheses which explain how sex may act to remove deleterious genes from the genome.
Maintenance of mutation-free individuals
Main article: Muller's ratchet

In a finite asexual population under the pressure of deleterious mutations, the random loss of individuals without such mutations is inevitable. This is known as Muller's ratchet. In a sexual population, however, mutation-free genotypes can be restored by recombination of genotypes containing deleterious mutations.

This comparison will only work for a small population - in a large population, random loss of the most fit genotype becomes unlikely even in an asexual population.
Removal of deleterious genes
Diagram illustrating different relationships between numbers of mutations and fitness. Kondrashov's model requires synergistic epistasis, which is represented by the red line[23][24] - each mutation has a disproproportionately large effect on the organism's fitness.

This hypothesis was proposed by Alexey Kondrashov, and is sometimes known as the deterministic mutation hypothesis.[22] It assumes that the majority of deleterious mutations are only slightly deleterious, and affect the individual such that the introduction of each additional mutation has an increasingly large effect on the fitness of the organism. This relationship between number of mutations and fitness is known as synergistic epistasis.

By way of analogy, think of a car with several minor faults. Each is not sufficient alone to prevent the car from running, but in combination, the faults combine to prevent the car from functioning.

Similarly, an organism may be able to cope with a few defects, but the presence of many mutations could overwhelm its backup mechanisms.

Kondrashov argues that the slightly deleterious nature of mutations means that the population will tend to be composed of individuals with a small number of mutations. Sex will act to recombine these genotypes, creating some individuals with fewer deleterious mutations, and some with more. Because there is a major selective disadvantage to individuals with more mutations, these individuals die out. In essence, sex compartmentalises the deleterious mutations.

There has been much criticism of Kondrashov's theory, since it relies on two key restrictive conditions. The first requires that the rate of deleterious mutation should exceed one per genome per generation in order to provide a substantial advantage for sex. While there is some empirical evidence for it (for example in Drosophila[25] and E. coli[26]), there is also strong evidence against it.[citation needed] Secondly, there should be strong interactions among loci (synergistic epistasis), a mutation-fitness relation for which there is only limited evidence. Conversely, there is also the same amount of evidence that mutations show no epistasis (purely additive model) or antagonistic interactions (each additional mutation has a disproportionally small effect).

I supposed there are several definitions of capitalism. But what it truly has become is corporatism.

NO they are not I do not know where you get your info from but democracy is older than capitalism.

Capitalism is a leech that feeds off democracy

Nothing...

HP is part of the economic problem. Instead of cutting back jobs in the U.S, they should be more focused on keeping jobs in America, not outsourcing to other countries.

The truth is that molecular biologists find many damaged and neutral genes when doing genome sequencing, yet do not find beneficial gene insertions.

There is scientific consensus that the capacity to synthesize nylonase most probably developed as a single-step mutation that survived because it improved the fitness of the bacteria possessing the mutation. This is seen as a good example of evolution through mutation and natural selection that has been observed as it occurs.[7][8][9][10]

This discovery led geneticist Susumu Ohno to speculate that the gene for one of the enzymes, 6-aminohexanoic acid hydrolase, had come about from the combination of a gene duplication event with a frame shift mutation.[2]

Check out this quack...

http://www.sperlingprostatecancercenter.com/focal_laser_ablation.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIFU

I did assume we both knew what the word universe means: the definition includes all matter.

Wow! You took something from a completely different part of physics and used it to prove a point that is not the point that was made.

Where, exactly, do the dark energy and the dark energy particles come from that appear in open space and cause the expansion of our universe? What are the laws of physics that allow the universe to expand?

The bottom line, to use your words, is that the universe is an open system, not a closed one as you stated, and that we don't know where energy comes from or what the laws of physics are there if we could get there.

You are using the second law of thermodynamics, which is a law and a pretty good one, and using it as an absolute in a place where you don't even know if it works. Your points are escaping reality's notice.

And your above post about the conservation of energy did not explain where the virtual particles go. A brief existence is still existence.

A simple misunderstanding, perhaps I didn't make myself clear. If energy has always existed, then the amount of entropy would be far higher than it currently is. Yes, I am aware that a team of physicists determined that the universe has 30x more entropy than expected, but that is locked up in super massive black holes and doesn't count as the background entropy that we would expect to find if energy had existed infinitely.



No, I understand that completely. We argued for like 10 pages until you finally admitted that Entropy could not be converted back into matter.

finally admitted that Entropy could not be converted back into matter.

Entropy is energy, which cannot be used. When have I ever said that "entropy destroys energy"? You can't honestly think I've ever posted that, can you? Is that just a strawman because you are frustrated or what?

Entropy is energy, which cannot be used. When have I ever said that "entropy destroys energy"? You can't honestly think I've ever posted that, can you? Is that just a strawman because you are frustrated or what?

The statement was that energy started to exist, basically that god created energy.

The rebuttal was, how do you know that energy has not always existed?

The answer was the second law of thermodynamics, which is a descriptive law (as is ALL of science). What does all of thermodynamics describe? Energy transfer within the universe.

Entropy is energy, which cannot be used.

There are two related definitions of entropy: the thermodynamic definition and the statistical mechanics definition. The thermodynamic definition was developed in the early 1850s by Rudolf Clausius and essentially describes how to measure the entropy of an isolated system in thermodynamic equilibrium. Importantly, it makes no reference to the microscopic nature of matter. The statistical definition was developed by Ludwig Boltzmann in the 1870s by analyzing the statistical behavior of the microscopic components of the system. Boltzmann showed that this definition of entropy was equivalent to the thermodynamic entropy to within a constant number which has since been known as Boltzmann's constant. In summary, the thermodynamic definition of entropy provides the experimental definition of entropy, while the statistical definition of entropy extends the concept, providing an explanation and a deeper understanding of its nature.

Cosmic Evolution of Entropy
Entropy is defined as the degree of randomness, which can be expressed alternatively as the degree of freedom in a system (the degree of freedom is the number of different parameters or arrangements needed to specify completely the state of a particle or system). The evolution of entropy in the universe as a whole can be separated into four phases:

Leptogenesis 1. The inflaton field is a coherent system changing gradually until the end of the inflationary era (Figure 06). Such system has very few degrees of freedom, so it has a very low entropy.
2. At the end of inflation the energy density of the inflaton field decays to zero (see Figure 03a), thereby releasing lots of energy to produce particle anti-particle pairs, and to heat up the universe. It is this "reheating" that produce lots of degree of freedom, and thus lots of entropy.
3. The infusion of energy dU ceased once the inflaton energy density vanished, i.e., dU = 0. According to the thermodynamics relation dU = TdS - pdV (where p = pressure, V = volume,
Figure 06 Initial Entropy [view large image]
T = temperature), the entropy now varies as dS = (p/T)dV. The universe was dominated by radiation up to 104 years after the Big Bang. During this era p T4; since in term of the size of the universe R, T 1/R, dV R2dR, thus dS dR/R and the entropy S log (R).
4. In a matter dominated universe p = 0, thus dS = 0; the entropy is conserved as a whole for the rest of the cosmic expansion.
5. If acceleration of the cosmic expansion is taken into account, then there is infusion of energy by an amount dU. The entropy dS dU/T will increase until space is nearly empty in attaining the highest entropy state.