I wonder if any of the more scientifically minded people on here could help me, please.

[Chris Koziarz]

O.K. Since you both missed this reply to Chris's answer (which can be found on pg. 2) as it was mixed up in the comments about global warming I've replied to it to bring it to the fore.
I haven't read about Lamarck since I was 12 or used any information about Darwin since I left school 20 years ago but from what I remember they had totally contradictory views. Lamarck believed that all animals came from pre-existing parents & that they transmitted all their characteristics off those parents whereas Darwin believed that environment had something to do with it & animals evolved according to their needs to be able to survive harsh environments & fight off predators. Darwin also thought that traits that made animals vulnerable died out.

So, it seems Lamarck theory would be more acceptable to creationists who believe in "irreducible complexity". So, the complexity of life was given in the genes of Lamarck's pra-parents and the question where said "pra-parents" came from should not be asked but replaced by faith in God the ultimate creator. I'm not saying Lamarck was the creationist but that his theory can be interpreted to suit such a world-view. It'd be interesting to discuss this aspect of Lamarck: was he aware of the limits of his knowledge and what he did believe in. I presume he lived slightly before Darwin, so his theory can be thought as a "first attempt" in what became known as evolutionary biology, and became super ceded by Darwin, and today most scientists in this field tend to favour Darwinian concepts, am I right?

 

[Horsa]

So, it seems Lamarck theory would be more acceptable to creationists who believe in "irreducible complexity". So, the complexity of life was given in the genes of Lamarck's pra-parents and the question where said "pra-parents" came from should not be asked but replaced by faith in God the ultimate creator. I'm not saying Lamarck was the creationist but that his theory can be interpreted to suit such a world-view. It'd be interesting to discuss this aspect of Lamarck: was he aware of the limits of his knowledge and what he did believe in. I presume he lived slightly before Darwin, so his theory can be thought as a "first attempt" in what became known as evolutionary biology, and became super ceded by Darwin, and today most scientists in this field tend to favour Darwinian concepts, am I right?

It would indeed be more acceptable to creationists. I don't think I made myself quite clear on some things though. His theory was more like a theory of inheritance than a theory of evolution. He wrote it in his "zoological philosophy" which was published in 1809, 50 years before Darwin wrote his "origin of species". He was a zoologist classifying animals when he wrote it. He stated that giraffes had long necks as their ancestors stretched to get leaves off the top of tall trees & the children of blacksmiths were physically stronger than most children due to the fact their father did so much hard labour & that was passed on for instance. I think everyone is aware of the limits of their knowledge & what they believe in. You're right that Lamarck's theory can be thought of as a first attempt at evolutionary biology & that everyone today believes Darwin's theory more. (I don't blame them. Darwin's theory is much more feasible. I'm nothing like my parents, for example. I'm the least practical person in the family. Also, Lamarck's theory suggested that giraffe's immediately get longer necks from stretching to get the top leaves which is that ridiculous I'm laughing as it just doesn't happen like that. If it did I'd suddenly get longer arms by stretching to try to get my local newspaper from the top shelf in the newsagent.) I don't mind discussing this. I should have explained myself better last time. Sorry for any misunderstanding.

 

[Chris Koziarz]

It would indeed be more acceptable to creationists. I don't think I made myself quite clear on some things though. His theory was more like a theory of inheritance than a theory of evolution. He wrote it in his "zoological philosophy" which was published in 1809, 50 years before Darwin wrote his "origin of species". He was a zoologist classifying animals when he wrote it. He stated that giraffes had long necks as their ancestors stretched to get leaves off the top of tall trees & the children of blacksmiths were physically stronger than most children due to the fact their father did so much hard labour & that was passed on for instance. I think everyone is aware of the limits of their knowledge & what they believe in. You're right that Lamarck's theory can be thought of as a first attempt at evolutionary biology & that everyone today believes Darwin's theory more. (I don't blame them. Darwin's theory is much more feasible. I'm nothing like my parents, for example. I'm the least practical person in the family. Also, Lamarck's theory suggested that giraffe's immediately get longer necks from stretching to get the top leaves which is that ridiculous I'm laughing as it just doesn't happen like that. If it did I'd suddenly get longer arms by stretching to try to get my local newspaper from the top shelf in the newsagent.) I don't mind discussing this. I should have explained myself better last time. Sorry for any misunderstanding.

Thank you very mush for that, Horsa.
No, no, I did not misunderstand. I just fantasised about the details of Lamarck theory I didn't know beforehand, so could not "fit" said theory into my world-view. Now I understand better. Unlike Darwin's theory, Lamarck's inheritance theory simply ignores the question if origin of life. From what you're saying, we probably don't know if Lamarck ever asked himself the "Darwinian question". Without a doubt, Lamarck greatly contributed to the science, even if today some of his ideas are laughable. Today we know, that giraffe is able to stretch its neck not by just trying (or "believing") hard but its offspring can randomly develop longer necks due to genetic defects and individuals with longer necks are more likely to survive. Evolution works slower (across generations) than Lamarck thought.

 

[Horsa]

Thank you very mush for that, Horsa.
No, no, I did not misunderstand. I just fantasised about the details of Lamarck theory I didn't know beforehand, so could not "fit" said theory into my world-view. Now I understand better. Unlike Darwin's theory, Lamarck's inheritance theory simply ignores the question if origin of life. From what you're saying, we probably don't know if Lamarck ever asked himself the "Darwinian question". Without a doubt, Lamarck greatly contributed to the science, even if today some of his ideas are laughable. Today we know, that giraffe is able to stretch its neck not by just trying (or "believing") hard but its offspring can randomly develop longer necks due to genetic defects and individuals with longer necks are more likely to survive. Evolution works slower (across generations) than Lamarck thought.

You're welcome, Chris. It was me who explained wrong in the 1st place which caused the misunderstanding. I explained wrong because like I said I read it when I was 12 but not since & I was thinking it's in here somewhere & pushing myself so at 1st I didn't have much detail but after a longer amount of time thinking I came up with more details. For some reason spontaneous combustion kept popping into my head but he didn't come up with the idea of spontaneous combustion but the idea of spontaneous generation. I guess if I wanted to make it easier on myself I could have re-read the book but I wouldn't do that. I'm not making myself out to be someone I'm not. He also stated that once an animal changes its characteristics for example like he thought the giraffe did by over-stretching its off-spring would inherit them. He did contribute greatly to science by inspiring Darwin to come up with his theory like Galen & Vesalius inspired Avicenna to come up with the true theory of circulation which was later rediscovered & proved by Harvey. When some ideas have been put down by someone else to start with it makes it easier for others as they can bounce other ideas off the original ideas.

 

[Horsa]

I guess you can call this an easy question considering my other questions. Why was Ernest Rutherford awarded the Nobel prize for chemistry?

 

[Chris Koziarz]

I guess you can call this an easy question considering my other questions. Why was Ernest Rutherford awarded the Nobel prize for chemistry?

Indeed, I'm as puzzled as you are, because chemistry deals with chemical reactions involving bonding of atoms via convalescent electron sharing. So, such reactions have nothing to do with what Rutherford was doing.
In justification of that 1908 Nobel, they said the price was "for his investigations into the disintegration of the elements, and the chemistry of radioactive substances" (my emphasis) which sounds like a complete misunderstanding, because radioactivity results from changes in the nucleus and convalescent electron bonding has nothing to do with it. The only explanation of such misunderstanding could be that back in 1908, most people incluging Nobel Price Committee did not fully understand what nuclear physics was about. In fact Rutherford is described as "the father of nuclear physics", so I guess the proper discipline in question herein, was established a little bit later. after Rutherford's achievements were digested and classified, maybe even after his death. Rutherford's contemporaries didn't know much so they naively imagined Rutherford's science was about "substance transformation" like in chemistry.

 

[Horsa]

Indeed, I'm as puzzled as you are, because chemistry deals with chemical reactions involving bonding of atoms via convalescent electron sharing. So, such reactions have nothing to do with what Rutherford was doing.
In justification of that 1908 Nobel, they said the price was "for his investigations into the disintegration of the elements, and the chemistry of radioactive substances" (my emphasis) which sounds like a complete misunderstanding, because radioactivity results from changes in the nucleus and convalescent electron bonding has nothing to do with it. The only explanation of such misunderstanding could be that back in 1908, most people incluging Nobel Price Committee did not fully understand what nuclear physics was about. In fact Rutherford is described as "the father of nuclear physics", so I guess the proper discipline in question herein, was established a little bit later. after Rutherford's achievements were digested and classified, maybe even after his death. Rutherford's contemporaries didn't know much so they naively imagined Rutherford's science was about "substance transformation" like in chemistry.

Thank you very much for your information. That was what I thought of as chemistry too & we also studied the periodic table & found out how elements reacted when they were put into water, heated with a Bunsen burner & put with other chemical elements etc. (I didn't like this part of chemistry as I always thought I was going to burn myself on the Bunsen burner.) I wondered whether he'd secretly discovered another element we didn't previously know about which I also didn't know about. I think you're probably right when it comes to trying to make sense of why Rutherford got the Nobel prize for chemistry when he was a physicist.

 

[mrzz]

The only explanation of such misunderstanding could be that back in 1908, most people incluging Nobel Price Committee did not fully understand what nuclear physics was about.

Exactly. There was not even a good model of the atom back then, actually not even a good enough theory to build a decent model upon it, so the contemporary distinction between what happens on atomic (and molecular) level and what happens at nuclear level (which is roughly the distinction among chemistry and nuclear physics) simply didn't make sense yet.

 

[Horsa]

Exactly. There was not even a good model of the atom back then, actually not even a good enough theory to build a decent model upon it, so the contemporary distinction between what happens on atomic (and molecular) level and what happens at nuclear level (which is roughly the distinction among chemistry and nuclear physics) simply didn't make sense yet.

Thank you very much for the confirmation & extra information, Mrzz. Mind you, thinking about it there wasn't a good model of the atom then because it was Ernest Rutherford himself who discovered the proton so obviously until he discovered protons people won't have known what atoms consisted of as much as we do today. Therefore the answer to my question in a well-phrased answer is "Ernest Rutherford was awarded the Nobel prize for Chemistry although he was a physicist because there wasn't the wealth of knowledge on chemistry & physics then as there is now & the theory he got the Nobel prize for Chemistry for was classed as Chemistry then but wouldn't be nowadays. (It would be classed as physics today)".

 

[Horsa]

Warning!

Hard questions with long run-up alert.

Since I got asked for easy questions & people don't always like my long run-ups I decided to warn you it was coming before-hand.

 

[Horsa]

I've been reading that scientists have found a longevity gene with more enzymes like telomerase in people who possess this gene but living a healthy life-style & changing diet & exercise regimes can also increase the amount of enzymes like telomerase which have been connected to the presence of this so-called longevity gene which means that rather than being totally genetic & natural there is some element of personal life-style choices & social influences such as education allowing you to know what is healthy & what isn't so that you can make informed choices & influence of society by advertising & making you want other convenience foods that you know aren't good for you that impact longevity too so longevity isn't completely natural, it isn't completely based on personal life-style choices or the society you live in either. My questions are:

1. To what extent is longevity natural?
2. To what extent do personal life-style choices impact longevity?
3. To what extent does society impact on longevity?

 

[Chris Koziarz]

Hard question indeed. A anyway, I looked into Impact Journal of Aging and found this article
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5425118/
that might be a good starting point for question 1, but my knowledge in genetics is too shallow to fully understand it and to have an opinion. So I give up.

 

[Horsa]

Hard question indeed. A anyway, I looked into Impact Journal of Aging and found this article
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5425118/
that might be a good starting point for question 1, but my knowledge in genetics is too shallow to fully understand it and to have an opinion. So I give up.

Thank you very much for your answer. That's very interesting. I'll see if I can find anything else about it when I have any spare time & share the information in case anyone else is interested.

 

[Horsa]

I had a fascinating time looking for the answers to my questions. I couldn't find those answers exactly (well without a bit of a guesstimate anyway) but found answers to questions which are very similar which I'll share later with some information I found as I think everyone will find it fascinating but they're long answers with long run-ups & I've also thought of tie-in bits of information that I already knew & considered but forgot to mention so I'll share them later.

 

[Horsa]

I'm going to change my questions on longevity a bit & then attempt to answer them & share some information I found.

1. It was "To what extent is longevity natural?". I'm going to change that to "how does nature impact longevity?"
2. It was "To what extent is longevity about personal choice?". I'm going to change that to "how do personal choices impact longevity?"
3. It was "To what extent does society have an impact on longevity?". I'm going to change that to "how does society impact longevity?"

 

[Horsa]

1. Nature has an impact on longevity because some people are born with conditions like asthma, diabetes & epilepsy which must be controlled or they can kill people. Some life-limiting conditions can be genetic. A lot of scientific research has been done that proves that people who live the longest lives have the right size telomeres which are kept the right size by the correct amount of an enzyme called telomerase. Telomeres are present in chromosomes & keep all the genetic information in cells. If they're too short genetic information can leak. If too much telomerase is present cancers can grow too much. Too little telomerase & the telomeres are too short. The people who live the longest lives have the right size telomeres & the right amount of telomerase but scientists have come up with anti-telomerase injections for people with cancer to stop the affects of telomerase on cancerous cells & they've come up with telomerase injections for people with telomeres that are too short. Telomeres which have been too short have been found in people with cardiovascular disease. https://www.utsouthwestern.edu/labs/shay-wright/research/facts-about-telomeres-telomerase.html https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...-much-telomerase-can-be-as-bad-as-too-little/

 

[Horsa]

2. Although nature has an impact on longevity, personal choices play a big role on determining how long someone will live. To live the longest, healthiest life possible we have to eat a healthy balanced diet with plenty of nutrient rich foods like fruit & vegetables, take enough exercise (not too much or too little), do things we enjoy with people we like & do things that challenge us a bit but not too much as to put us under too much pressure & make us feel fulfilled so we don't succumb to anxiety & depression which can shorten lives if people feel suicidal & decide to do something about suicidal thoughts, refrain from smoking & drinking too much alcohol & not take too many risks.

 

[Horsa]

3. Society has an impact on longevity because the society where we live determines the education we have to make informed decisions about diet & exercise & the situations we find ourselves in. The situations we find ourselves in sometimes impacts our behaviour. If we always find ourselves in harsh situations we sometimes think that the situations we find ourselves in are unbearable & instead of trying to constantly work our way out of these situations people sometimes think the only way out is out altogether & try to do something about it which sometimes causes people to die young. What makes this situation worse is the fact that it doesn't matter what you've been through if you're unhappy & see no way out of harsh situations you're always seen as off your head whereas many people with emotional difficulties are actually highly intelligent so many depressed people don't go for the help they need because of the stigma attached to it. I mean there's only so much a person can take & it's like adding insult to injury treating people who've been through so much as if they're idiots when they're not. In fact some of the smartest people I know have suffered from emotional difficulties & some famous, creative people who are also very smart have suffered from emotional difficulties like Charlotte Bronte & Charles Dickens. Society also impacts on longevity because if people are born & live in areas where there are food shortages &/ droughts they can't get enough food &/ water for their needs so they can die young or if they're born & live in crime hotspots they can be victims of murder/ manslaughter/death by dangerous driving & can die young due to this too.

 

[Horsa]

This question is partially to do with archaeology. Nowadays, before most archaeological digs start a team of geophysicists walk around the proposed site with a frame which is actually a piece of machinery which does a geophysical survey of the site, then they take their frames into rooms full of computers & they're connected to the computers which show the results on a screen which are grainy pictures showing where man-made materials are & structures such as walls & where the natural elements are then they get printed off & the archaeologists decide where to dig based on this information. How does the geophysical machine work & geophysics as a whole, please?

 

[mrzz]

This question is partially to do with archaeology. Nowadays, before most archaeological digs start a team of geophysicists walk around the proposed site with a frame which is actually a piece of machinery which does a geophysical survey of the site, then they take their frames into rooms full of computers & they're connected to the computers which show the results on a screen which are grainy pictures showing where man-made materials are & structures such as walls & where the natural elements are then they get printed off & the archaeologists decide where to dig based on this information. How does the geophysical machine work & geophysics as a whole, please?

Wow! Wasn't even aware of that, thanks for the info contained on the question, Horsa. I could guess something here and there but that is all is quite out of my scope actually.