Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2010 August 1

= August 1 =

Question 9, part (d)(i)
http://www.tqa.tas.gov.au/4DCGI/_WWW_doc/008614/RND01/PHY5C_paper.PDF The Right hand grip rule tells me that current is flowing clockwise, which means the electrons are flowing anticlockwise, but apparently that is not correct. Am I missing something?--220.253.172.214 (talk) 01:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The grip rule refers to the field created by moving charges. However, in this case the field is externally applied (i.e. not related to the electrons), and you are asked to explain how the charges move in response to the field (rather than the other way around).  If you apply F = qv × B and the right hand rule you'll arrive at the correct answer that the electrons move clockwise in the applied field.  Dragons flight (talk) 01:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see how F=qvB is usable here since you are not given values for F, v or B. I also fail to see the correct application of the right hand rule, sorry.--220.253.172.214 (talk) 01:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't need the values, just the relationship and signs. In order to move in a circle, F must point towards the center.  B points into the page.  q is an electron, so it is negative and flips the sign.  Given those factors, you use the right hand rule (specifically this) to decide whether clockwise or anti-clockwise v fits the other constraints.  Dragons flight (talk) 01:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * To be clear, you need $$\vec F = q \vec v \times \vec B$$, not just F = qvB. Dragons flight (talk) 01:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You don't want or need to use the right hand grip rule - you need the Fleming's left hand rule for motors (again remember that current is in the opposite direction to elecron flow). You have the field, and the force (the force must be directed into the centre of the circle to make the electrons turn) - one of the two directions of current gives a force inwards (the other outwards) - from this you can find out whether the current is clockwise or anticlockwise).Sf5xeplus (talk) 12:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Identical twins and children
Suppose a woman has a threesome with two identical male twins and gets pregnant from this. Is there any way to find out which twin is the father? 68.237.21.90 (talk) 01:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Theoretically, yes. But you'd have to use a more sensitive technique than traditional paternity testing which only looks at a few loci at which the identical twins are almost certain to be identical.  There is a certain mutation rate inherent during gametogenesis, so if you had an appropriate "sample" from each of the potential fathers you could potentially identify positions at which the offspring might differ between them using whole genome sequencing. --- Medical geneticist (talk) 01:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * How does that work? Why would one sperm from a man have the same mutations during gametogenesis as another sperm from that man? And, if that is the case, why would it be different mutations in an identical twin? --Tango (talk) 01:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The gametes of the two identical twins will contain different de novo mutations. By chance, some of those mutations will be present in the majority of that individual's sperm (while others may be present in only a fraction of the sperm).  This is called gonadal mosaicism. If the two sperm samples were sequenced deeply enough using "next-generation" methods, it would be theoretically possible to identify new mutations unique to either of the twins (those would be the positions at which their respective offspring would differ).  Then you could just sequence those sites using standard methods in the child.  Please note, however, that the OP asked if there was "any way to find out which twin is the father", not whether that method was "practical", "likely to succeed", "admissible in court", or "achievable by the average person". Even though what I've outlined is possible, it would require an extraordinary effort by today's paternity testing standards. --- Medical geneticist (talk) 11:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you aren't making sense. You seem to be using "gamete" and "sperm" as if they are different things. Sperm are the male gametes. When you say "gamete" do you actually mean "gonad"? --Tango (talk) 15:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Spermatozoa are the mature male gametes. However, de novo mutations occur in the earlier gametic progenitors (during DNA replication), which is why I called them gametes and not sperm .  See spermatogenesis and meiosis.  The gonad is the sex organ (testis or ovary) that contains and supports the developing gametes, along with having endocrine functions.  There is certainly a difference between "gamete" and "gonad".  When we talk about "gonadal mosaicism" or "germline mosaicism", the implication is that there can be gametes (progenitors and mature gametes) gametic progenitors with different genetic compositions -- either chromosomal or at the level of individual nucleotides.  In the context of the OP's question, the most likely sample to be analyzed would be the mature spermatozoa as opposed to a testis biopsy specimen, which is why I specified that it would be the sperm sample that would be sequenced in this highly improbable scenario. Does it make sense now? --- Medical geneticist (talk) 18:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the same problem exists: if the mutation happens in the production of individual gametes then there will be no correlation between the mutations in different gametes. Without such a correlation, you can't identify the father from new sperm. I think you are trying to say that the mutations happen in the production of gametocytes, not gametes. --Tango (talk) 23:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Point taken. It was sloppy for me to use the word "gamete" to refer to gametic progenitors.  However, gametocyte isn't quite right either.  The proportion of sperm carrying a given de novo mutation will depend on how early in the process of gametogenesis the mutation was introduced.  In order to generate a significant degree of germline mosaicism, the new mutation would have to occur in the primordial germ cell or spermatogonium.  If the mutation occurred as late as the gametocyte, there would not be enough affected mature gametes to allow determination of paternity. --- Medical geneticist (talk) 02:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, not with current technology. Children of identical twins have the same genetic similarity as half-siblings (rather than as cousins, which is to be expected as the children of non-identical siblings). While it should be noted that one could find genetic difference between identical twins at the full genome level, genetic fingerprinting and paternity testing use a tiny tiny fraction of the total genome, such that one cannot tell the difference. Remember that the human genome project took over 10 years to complete the first full sequencing of a human genome; and that was just a generalized genome for humans in general. An individualized full genome for even one person is a practical impossibility with current technology. ed note: striking.  It appears it has been done, but it is still generally impractical to do for purposes such as this Hypothetically, if you COULD obtain a full genome from the child and both twins, you MAY be able to tell the difference. But that isn't possible under modern methods of DNA fingerprinting. See Twin for a (IMHO) altogether too-brief discussion of twins and genetics. -- Jayron  32  01:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You've blinked and missed the revolution. Sequencing a full individual human genome only costs a few thousand dollars right now, and is expected to drop to less than $1000 in a year or two. (Although I think it's correct that this problem would be extremely difficult even given both full genomes.) Looie496 (talk) 02:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that "a few" still means around $20-15 thousand. But yeah, getting cheaper all the time. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Part of the reason why DNA fingerprinting is legally admissable is that their is solid experimental backing that it works; there are now millions of successful uses which allow us to say that matching two samples via DNA fingerprinting methods is reliable as can practically be. Full genome sequencing indicates that the current number of published full genomes of individuals runs somewhere in the dozens at the outside; while comercialization in the next few years may increase this number, it is not in any way currently a reliable method of identification, which is what is needed to use it to determine which of two identical twins is the father of a child.  -- Jayron  32  02:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it hasn't been tested in court because of the minimal number of people whose genomes have been sequenced, but I can't imagine it would be seen as unreliable. Basically DNA fingerprinting is sort of like saying two books must be the same because all 20 chapters have the same number of pages.  A match based on full genome sequencing is like saying two books must be the same because they match word for word and letter for letter.  There just isn't any way it could conceivably give a wrong answer. Looie496 (talk) 06:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I am with you on that point. However, I am also married to a forensic scientist, so there is also the other end of it.  Being reliable for a scientist isn't the same as being reliable to a lawyer.  They are overlapping, but not necessarily identical, sets of data... -- Jayron  32  03:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Where is the center of the universe?
An explosion radiates energy equally in all directions. As the energy loses heat, it decays into matter. The Big Bang was such an explosion, and it created a universe, which continues to expand, after nearly 14 billion years. So one would assume that the center of the universe is empty, since all its matter continues to move outwards, and away from other matter. But I am told that our solar system is at the center of the universe, as is our galaxy, the Milky Way. How is this possible? On the other hand, Penzias and Wilson were able to measure the residual microwave radiation of the Big Bang, in frquency and temperature, at the outer edges of the universe. They found that the values were equal in all directions, within minuscule uniformity. How would this be possible, if some of their measurements were taken from one side of the universe to the other, across its empty center? Or from closer to one edge of the universe than to another, more distant edge? Where are we, in relation to the center of the universe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geepod2 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The universe has no center; an alternate perspective is everywhere is part of the universes center. The universe does not expand from a single point, like an explosion, it expands from every point, like a rising loaf of bread.  One standard analogy is to think of the universe as being like polka dots on a balloon surface.  If you draw polka dots on a balloon, and blow it up, all of the dots move away from each other, yet no one of the dots is actually the "center" dot.  This is because the universe is not expanding into empty space, it is creating the space itself.  The article shape of the universe discusses some of the common theories about the shape of the universe, and many of the best fit shapes are "edgeless".  -- Jayron  32  02:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * When thinking on the scale of the universe, Newtonian physics is no longer a good approximation. HiLo48 (talk) 02:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You said you've been told the solar system is at the center of the universe. Whoever told you this is completely off the mark since, as described above by Jayron, the universe has no center. You are probabily better off desregarding anything else that person told you about cosmology. Dauto (talk) 05:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That person maybe meant the Observable universe, since the universe is expanding uniformly and the light has had an equal time to travel in all direction we are of curse in the centre of our Observable universe. Every point is in the centre of the universe observable from that point.Gr8xoz (talk) 10:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The "center" of the universe isn't in the universe at all! Think of it like an expanding balloon, but a 3-dimensional surface on a 4-dimensional sphere instead of a 2-dimensional surface on a 3-dimensional sphere. --138.110.206.100 (talk) 12:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's pretend that there are only two dimensions of space for a minute. If the universe were infinite in size, then clearly there is no boundary and nowhere can be called "the centre". But if the universe were finite in size (like a piece of paper) then there is a clear boundary and one can define a central point. The same goes in 3D: if the universe is infinite then there is no centre. If it is finite, there it.


 * There is an interesting alternative however. Imagine we're back in 2D again. Imagine curving the piece of paper into a sphere. The universe (the surface of the paper) is still finite, but now there is no boundary and so no centre on the piece of paper. Or you could form the paper into a doughnut shape or something even crazier. These "curved back on themselves" model universes are said to have "non-standard topologies".


 * So what do we think applies to our universe? Well, some cosmologists are working on non-standard topology theories, and there are astronomers looking at the sky for signs that we live in such a universe. If light could go "all the way around", we might be able to see the same star at opposite points in the sky. So far we haven't found any evidence for non-standard topology but we certainly haven't ruled it out. But the "standard model" (our best theory of the universe at the moment) says that either that the universe is infinite, or so huge that each point in our observable universe is so far from the boundary that we can't tell which is the central point. And of course if the universe is finite in size (but much much bigger than the observable universe) then the centre of the universe will not be in our observable universe anyway. Most cosmologists don't think that the universe has a wrap-around topology like in the balloon example, so that's not a good explanation as to why there is no centre in my opinion.152.78.128.149 (talk) 13:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you give some examples of cosmologists that seriously think the universe has (or is likely to have) a boundary? My understanding of modern cosmology is that we either live in an infinite universe, or a finite universe without boundary (such as a torus). I've never heard anyone seriously suggest the universe might have a boundary - what would that boundary be like? --Tango (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * True. I don't think I've ever heard of anyone considering a universe with a boundary. Having said this, I work in particle physics (I've just started a PhD, so I'm no expert!) and a model that I've looked at proposes that there is a fourth spatial dimension of (small) finite length that is simply a line segment and not compact like a circle. Technically though, it can be formed by orbifolding a circle. This extra dimension thus has two boundaries. But the orbifolding process naturally leads to boundary conditions on the fields that can live in the dimension so that excitations (i.e. particles) travelling into either one of the boundaries are reflected. So a boundary isn't a completely crazy idea if you add some extra postulates (like those boundary conditions) that effectively tell you what happens to things travelling into a boundary. I definitely haven't heard any cosmologist talking about this stuff though. I'm the poster you replied to, despite the different IP! 86.137.169.18 (talk) 15:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Inflation makes a large homogeneous region, but not (necessarily?) an infinite one. I remember one of my undergraduate professors sketching on the blackboard a flat region of space surrounded by a crazy wavy region on which he wrote "here be dragons". That's an accurate if sardonic representation of the present state of knowledge in cosmology. The problem is that you can't experimentally distinguish models that only differ outside the observable universe. If the flat region were smaller than the observable universe then we'd see huge inhomogeneities in the CMBR, so that much is ruled out. But whether the flat region is finite and larger than that is anybody's guess. Compact spatial topologies have the same problem. When people propose that space wraps around, they always have it wrap around on a scale smaller than the observable universe, simply because that's the only way the model can make any new predictions. So far, all testable models of this type have been ruled out, but whether space wraps around on a larger, untestable scale is an open question, and may always be. -- BenRG (talk) 22:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, the inflated region may well be finite, but what would happen at the edge? There would still be spacetime outside it, would anything actually happen when you crossed the edge other than the average density increasing (a lot)? You are right, though, what we are discussing is largely unscientific: by definition, what happens in the unobservable universe is not empirically verifiable. --Tango (talk) 23:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * For the universe to have a shape, that "shape" would take place on a "plane" that would be the "boundary" of said universe. The existing space within the boundary would be the universe, and the non-existing emptiness is what's outside the boundary. Since the universe has an age, it must have had such a boundary while it had a finite size early in its life, and the same should be true when multiverses are created. If such a boundary does exist, it would likely be moving faster than light since matter cannot move faster than $$c$$ but the expansion of space can. The centre of the universe could be considered the origin point of the Big Bang, but that point might no longer meaningfully exist as the universe itself could have moved relative to that point yet there is no outside frame of reference to compare the location of the universe to. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 23:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that's all nonsense. It just doesn't work like that. When we talk about the universe being a torus (for example) we don't mean a torus embedded in some higher-dimensional space, we're just talking about its inherent shape. It's a little difficult to get your head around, but thinking of the universe as being embedded leads to completely nonsensical conclusions. The big bang does not mean the universe is finite - the universe didn't necessarily start as a point, it could well have been infinite at the time of the big bang and then expanded at all points. --Tango (talk) 23:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * To expand on Tango's idea for a bit; the idea of defining the universe as expanding within something has the problem as this merely redefines what the Universe is; as does the idea of "Multiverses". The Universe is, by definition, everything; if you define the Universe as part of everything, then you aren't talking about the Universe, but something smaller.  If the Universe is expanding into something, that something is the real Universe and the thing doing the expanding is a smaller subunit of it.  -- Jayron  32  03:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, well put. I like to define "universe" as what you get by taking your current point in spacetime and then adding every point that is causally connected (two points are causally connected if something that happens at one point can have an effect at the other, which basically means light can travel between them) to that point (which results in the observable universe), and then every point that is causally connected to any of those points and repeating ad infinitum. By that definition, any "other universe" in the "multiverse" can either have no effect on us whatsoever, so we might as well assume it doesn't exist, or is part of our universe. You can then forget about multiverses as anything more than a mathematical convenience. --Tango (talk) 12:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Placebo Questions
I was reading the placebo article on wikipedia and I was wondering a few things...

1. Why does the placebo effect wear off overtime? 2. It also says that a placebo may not always give immediate relief or improvement and the real drug will, why is that? 3. Why does the placebo effect only work in 30% of people? Is it a certain group of people? People that really trust their doctor or people who really think it's going to work? I know the article talks about personality and the placebo effect and says there is no difference in placebo effect based on personality, but does anyone know of any studies that show a difference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.30.156 (talk) 08:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Placebos work on the premise that psyhology can affect physiology. There is a wide physiologic range among people, and there is likely a wide psychological range as well.  Even physiologically speaking, a common dose of medication is usually referred to as the ED50, referring to the dose at which 50% of drug takers will manifest the effect.  (In order to judge the lethal dose, a similar LD50 is used.)  And there's a lot of psychology involved in almost everything one does -- numerous studies have shown that people who engage in social interaction, exercise regularly, etc. can be shown to complain of less pain.  So there are so many numerous factors involved in things like post-operative pain/sensitivity/complaints.  Perhaps that's a start for you.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 13:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I corrected your ED50 link. Dose thresholds are meaningful where there is a correlation between dosage and effect. There is no consistent correlation for placebos. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There can be an effect between dosage and effect in placebos, if only insofar as the patient believes that two different placebo pills contain different dosages of the illusory drug... -- Jayron  32  03:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Computer-controlled cars
I think it might have been in Time Cop; I recall a driverless car that took its occupant to the desired location. Assuming there is no track in the road guiding such a car, could such a system work on the GPS technology we current have, assuming we got vehicular technology up to such a level? Cars would be speeding around and would never crash because the GPS map would know where each car is at every moment. Assuming streets and highways would be off limits for pedestrians (or some kind of sensors would allow for them to be integrated into the GPS map), is such a system possible, or can, for instance, GPS not detect objects to such precise measurements?  DRosenbach  ( Talk 13:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it has been done. See DARPA Grand Challenge for an example. The third challenge in 2007 took place on the streets of a disused airbase, although the only other cars were other challengers. 62.56.61.163 (talk) 13:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) GPS satellite navigation can give adequate location precision though safety would require keeping generous spacing between vehicles and provision for signal shadow areas. There would be concerns about the vulnerability of the radio navigation to interference, whether it is accidental or deliberate jamming. The radio controlled traffic lanes would have to be isolated from all other traffic, comparable to creating a new railway system. With central control, traffic could move very efficiently but it would be constricted by the limited number of entrance/exit points. These points would have to include adequate spaces for acceleration, deceleration and queuing. All possible failure modes need study. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You wouldn't just use GPS — the car itself would have localized sensors to detect other vehicles, walls, pedestrians, dogs, etc. It takes more than GPS to navigate through a real-life environment for fairly obvious reasons (GPS can't tell you when an old lady is in the street). Anyway, this is potentially something out there for the future, though aside from the rather copious technical hurdles involved, and the problematic legal ones — how would such a thing be insured? who is at fault when they crash? make no mistake, there will be crashes, no matter how clever the technology is, because that's how things work in the "real world" — there is also a high psychological barrier to being driven around in such a fashion by a computer.
 * Getting out my crystal ball, I would suggest that unmanned cars will probably only be used in rather limited situations, like guarding a border fence or a military base, where the conditions can be relatively controlled for and the car itself can defer to a remotely-controlling human in the case of anything anomalous. I doubt they will be used for general transportation, especially since if you want someone to drive you somewhere, it is not that expensive to just hire an actual human being. I suspect automatic transportation for general use would only be used on tracked systems, like subways or rail, where the conditions can be easily automatically limited. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) The autonomous vehicle article goes into more detail. Basically GPS is used only for deciding which junctions to take. Each car has short-range LIDAR (IR laser based RADAR) and video-cameras so it can detect what other vehicles are doing, and avoid collisions. There is a car platoon protocol; this allows cars to form convoys. Each car indicates to the car behind that it is about to brake, so that the second car can brake earlier. This allows the separation distance to be less. The lead car decides what speed to travel at and to avoid collisions. If each car communicates its acceleration/braking profile to the others, then the platoon can follow the least capable car, and the separation distance can be very close. Of course, there need to be a way for cars to announce that they are about to leave the platoon; if car in the middle needs to leave, then the car behind it will become a temporary lead and drop back a bit to make some room. The leaving car will then drop back a bit itself, and then leave at the next junction. The car behind will then rejoin the platoon. CS Miller (talk) 14:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * An Italian university is scheduled to have a driverless car driving from Italy to China in October. http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,5829135,00.html Impressive if true - but I thought it was impractical for a human driven car to do the same route due to wars? 92.29.127.162 (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Wars? Between who? The link and my searches don't seem to discuss the route, but mention Siberia and Mongolia. In any case, the obvious route from what's been described would be reaching Russia somehow from Italy (many practical ways) then on to Mongolia and China. There are of course other routes, e.g. . All these options have a variety of safety risks, likely a lot of paperwork & money & time & other facets of bureaucracy and probably a bunch of bribes too (for example you'll probably need a 'guide' to drive in China http://www.lonelyplanet.com/thorntree/thread.jspa?threadID=1780257) so while not for the faint hearted is doable and there must be a resonable number of people who do that sort of thing, i.e. driving from Western Europe to China every year. Nil Einne (talk) 19:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Technically, the Italian car isn't exactly driverless. There will be someone sitting behind the wheel the entire time - they'd never get permission to have an entirely unmanned machine to drive in those places. How many times will he have to take control?  Lots, I suspect. SteveBaker (talk) 01:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Audi designed and built a driver-less Audi TTS to do the climb up Pikes Peak at full tilt . Episode 10x08 of Top Gear featured an autonomous BMW doing a full-ball lap of the track . As mentioned by others, such systems won't only use GPS. Some of the other systems that are already in use today include radar guided cruise control, park distance control, lane departure warning, traction control, vehicle stability control, ABS, infra-red and visible light cameras featuring facial, vehicle, pedestrian and road sign recognition, self-parking systems etc. It's amazing how many of the necessary systems are already in place in the (top-of-the-range) cars you can buy today. Zunaid 18:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

few question about glycolysis
1)What is the logic of glycolysis?? I mean its main purpose is to provide energy and also it is a multipathway i.e,its intermediates are use in many other pathways... bt do it have any other function other than the above....???

2)glucokinase is synthesized after 2 weeeks of birth. After feeding(insulin) stimulates the glucokinase system. What kind of regulatory mechanism is operational here....??

plz help me by replying fast.....m waiting!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Priyankajoshi7 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As a point of netiquette it is generally considered impolite to ask for a quick response; we are all volunteers here. For future reference, please sign your questions and replies by typing in ~ . It's to the left of the '1' (one) key on US-keyboards and to the 3 keys right of the 'L' on UK-keyboards, or press the pen-like button on the standard editing toolbar.
 * Back to your question, bio-chemistry is not my discipline, but our glycolysis article gives some of the other uses of the intermediates, especially the biochemical logic and intermediates for other pathways sections. CS Miller (talk) 15:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

What is convergent evolution?
If an octopus and I have a common ancestor who possessed what I might call 'proto-eyeness', by which I mean not eyes themselves, as we know them, but everything necessary to the production of descendants with eyes, then can my own eyes and the octopus's eyes be said truly to have evolved independently, and is there really any such thing as convergence? By analogy (no pun intended), a woman with no formal education but wealth and social connections has three daughters, two of whom go to university. The university degrees did not evolve independently of one another: they are each the result of the mother's wealth and social connections (or 'proto-universitiness'). I mention the third daughter because I know some of our cousins have no eyes. 91.107.28.138 (talk) 20:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Did you read Convergent evolution?  A good example: sharks and dolphins share many similarities and look a lot alike.  However they are not closely related at all.  The converged on many of the same traits because they lived in similar environments and benefited from many of the same adaptations.  Friday (talk) 21:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Friday, I did read Convergent evolution. It says of bats and birds that 'their last common ancestor did not have wings'. But I think their last common ancestor did have 'wingedness', or everything necessary for the production of descendants with wings. 91.104.164.37 (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You are describing parallel evolution rather than convergent evolution. --Tango (talk) 23:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The term convergent evolution doesn't carry any implication about causes, it only says that two species are more similar now, with respect to a certain feature, than their ancestors were. It is entirely possible to have convergent evolution at the organism level in spite of divergent evolution at the gene level.  In the case that you describe, convergence would result from unveiling of a previously hidden similarity.  That isn't how convergence normally arises, in the opinion of most biologists, but if it did, it would still be called convergent evolution. Looie496 (talk) 00:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * An interesting recent paper argues that the distinction between "parallel evolution" and "convergent evolution" is artificial and should be discarded. See Convergence and parallelism reconsidered: what have we learned about the genetics of adaptation?  Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 09:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The eyes of an octopus evolved from skin cells. Your eyes evolved from brain cells. They're not modifications of the same 'proto-eye'. — DanielLC 22:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * 91, I don't think it's fruitful to consider this issue of an organism having "everything necessary to the production of descendants with *some feature*".  Given enough time and evolutionary pressure, pretty much all that's necessary is being alive, and you can produce an astounding array of descendants with novel features.   It seems very impressive that the vast array of life on earth almost certainly came from a common ancestor, but hey, life is very impressive.  Friday (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

can loud music (esp. prominent electric guitars, drum, bass) kill cells on a microscope slide?
When imaging cells for sometimes up to six hours at a time, I of course take advantage of my laboratory's nifty sound system ;-)

but I want to ask if thundering bass in the same room can affect my experiments? John Riemann Soong (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sonication usually uses ultrasonic frequencies. It seems very unlikely that audio frequency music would be able to disrupt cell membranes.  Nimur (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I wasn't thinking disrupting cell membranes, but maybe activating sensitive mechanoreceptors that would set off apoptosis? John Riemann Soong (talk) 22:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I read one paper where apparently sustained exposure to "low-frequency sonication" could kill cells. Would that be in the audible range? John Riemann Soong (talk) 23:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe something like this, this or even this? ~ A H  1 (TCU) 23:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The first link is from 1932 (!) and the others describe killing cells with ultrasound. Bass and sub-bass are infrasound so I don't think they can kill cells (I'm glad off this, although I do get a strange headache after listening to drum and bass) This paper states that "low-frequency sonication" is of 25 kHz, just outside of our hearing range and the opposite end of the spectrum compared to bass. I think that sonication must also be very loud sound, considering that bats produce ultrasound at 130 decibels but don't drop out of the sky as their cells die. Considering all of this I agree with Nimur that it is very unlikely that loud music could kill cells on a slide. Smartse (talk) 00:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sound waves have two measures of strength: Their intensity (or amplitude) and their frequency (or tone or note). Both can do damage.  High frequency soundwaves are of a higher energy sound than lower frequency sounds of the same intensity, AND louder sounds have more energy.  Your hearing can be damaged by high volume infrasound, even if you cannot hear it.  Presumably, very high volume, but low frequency, soundwaves could cause damage even on the cellular level.  -- Jayron  32  03:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but noise-induced hearing loss occurs because the cells that are damaged have evolved specifically to absorb sound energy - normal cells won't be affected. My physics is pretty rusty but AFAIK the wavelength of low frequency music would be too large to interact with something as small as a cell. What frequencies and decibels do you mean by "very high volume, but low frequency" and can you find a rouce to back up your presumption? Smartse (talk) 08:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Personally I would be more concerned about the stability of the optics during imaging than killing cells - excessive vibration could shift or blur your images (how long is each exposure?). However if you are not finding this a problem already it's probably ok - but you should check if anyone else in the lab is doing vibration sensitive experiments, or you might find yourself quite unpopular when they check their images/results. Equisetum (talk &#124; email &#124; contributions) 08:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I usually take time lapse images -- I use a 55-75 msec exposure time but for space constraints (to avoid taking 1 terabyte of data each day) I use a 500-800 msec delay between each capture. Focal drift is always an issue, so I always have to play with the knob now and then, even to stay on the same focal plane (and particles I'm tracking often shift focal planes as well) but I did notice that with music on, I seemed to have to knob more frequently. John Riemann Soong (talk) 14:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)