A (r)evolution in chemistry

  The power of evolution is revealed through the diversity of life. The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2018 is awarded to Frances H. Arnold, George P. Smith and Sir Gregory P. Winter for the way they have taken control of evolution and used it for the greatest benefit to humankind. Enzymes developed through directed evolution are now used to produce biofuels and pharmaceuticals, among other things. Antibodies evolved using a method called phage display can combat autoimmune diseases and, in some cases, cure metastatic cancer.
(...)
  This process has now come so far that it has given rise to three individuals so complex they have managed to master evolution themselves. The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2018 is awarded to Frances H. Arnold, George P. Smith and Sir Gregory P. Winter, because they have revolutionized both chemistry and the development of new pharmaceuticals through directed evolution. Let’s begin with the star of enzyme engineering: Frances Arnold. 
(...)
  For several years, she had tried to change an enzyme called subtilisin so that rather than catalysing chemical reactions in a water-based solution, it would work in an organic solvent, dimethylformamide (DMF). Now she created random changes – mutations – in the enzyme’s genetic code and then introduced these mutated genes into bacteria that produced thousands of different variants of subtilisin.

  After this, the challenge was to find out which of all these variants worked best in the organic solvent. In evolution, we talk about survival of the fittest; in directed evolution this stage is called selection.
 
  Frances Arnold utilised the fact that subtilisin breaks down milk protein, casein. She then selected the variant of subtilisin that was most effective in breaking down casein in a solution with 35 per cent DMF. She subsequently introduced a new round of random mutations in this subtilisin, which yielded a variant that worked even better in DMF.

  In the third generation of subtilisin she found a variant that worked 256 times better in DMF than the original enzyme. This variant of the enzyme had a combination of ten different mutations, the benefits of which no one could have worked out in advance.

  With this, Frances Arnold demonstrated the power of allowing chance and directed selection, instead of solely human rationality, to govern the development of new enzymes. This was the first and most decisive step towards the revolution we are now witnessing.

  The next important step was taken by Willem P. C. Stemmer, a Dutch researcher and entrepreneur who died in 2013. He introduced yet another dimension to the directed evolution of enzymes: mating in a test tube.

(continued at https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/10/popular-chemistryprize2018.pdf)

People are being mean to me  

The reason homeopathic "medicines" have no side effects because is because they have no effects whatsoever. They are sham water tablets. Go peddle your scam elsewhere please.

Although laboratory experiments suggest it is possible that some substances in Ayurveda might be developed into effective treatments, there is no evidence that any are effective in themselves.
(...)

Some traditional Indian herbal medicinal products contain harmful levels of heavy metals, including lead. A 1990 study on Ayurvedic medicines in India found that 41% of the products tested contained arsenic, and that 64% contained lead and mercury. A 2004 study found toxic levels of heavy metals in 20% of Ayurvedic preparations made in South Asia and sold in the Boston area, and concluded that Ayurvedic products posed serious health risks and should be tested for heavy-metal contamination. A 2008 study of more than 230 products found that approximately 20% of remedies (and 40% of rasa shastra medicines) purchased over the Internet from U.S. and Indian suppliers contained lead, mercury or arsenic. A 2015 study of users in the United States found elevated blood lead levels in 40% of those tested, leading physician and former U.S. Air Force flight surgeon Harriet Hall to say that "Ayurveda is basically superstition mixed with a soupçon of practical health advice. And it can be dangerous."

Well Coincube is one of those guys that are smarter than the average christian. He actually accepts evolution and doesn't believe the earth is only 10k years old if I recall correctly.

Story Highlights

    38% say God created man in present form, lowest in 35 years
    Same percentage say humans evolved, but God guided the process
    Less-educated Americans more likely to believe in creationism



% who believe God created humans in present form within last 10,000 years:
By religion:
Protestant/Other Christian = 50%
Catholic = 37%
No-religion = 9% (who are these guys?!?)

By education:
High school or less = 48%
College graduate = 24%
Post graduate = 21%

Wow, I did not expect that from you.  I thought you were smarter than that.

Maybe you should have an idea, and a thought or two, before blindly following something you don't understand.



You'll make a perfect socialist.  Honesty is the bane of socialism, so of course you don't care to be honest.

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man."

The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition.

This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery "battle" and the defeat of an "enemy" may be more valued than critical thinking or an understanding of both sides of the issue.

The important difference between science and religion is that religion comes with ABSOLUTE statements, that neither can be proved or disproved, and science evolves from relative truths and statements, that can be testified and proven false (which means: science has to develop, in order to replace (partly) untrue theories, and replace them with better ones). Science does not claim it has absolute knowledge on anything. Religion claims it has.

All scientific theories are in principle disprovable, and in the end all theories will be disproven (at least it can be shown there is a limiting case in which the theory does not work).

Religion can in principle not be disproven. Which does not contribute either to it's proof. It is also unprovable.

If something is neither provable nor disprovable, then it is useless.
It can only have value to people who prefer to be ignorant, and don't want to get into complicated knowledge, and prefer to believe in something that is disprovable.

Science is for people that realize that in order to acquire knowledge, some work (sometimes a LOT) has to be done! And even despite you put in a LOT of work, someone else my disproof all (or part) of your work! That is : you have to try even harder!

Religion is for people who claim to know EVERYTHING ABSOLUTELY ("God created the world", for instance ) without having done any work to get to that opinion, and for which nobody can give any disproof. So it is a very safe position. You don't have to do WORK for entitling yourself an opinion on matters that seem important, and nobody can force you to do some work for finding a better opinion, cause there lacks the ability to disproof you.

What a comfortable position!

@af_newbie, Well put.  Thanks for responding for me.

@Moloch, here's a hint on how to make the determination:  If a country has one or more corporations based within it's boarders that is not under complete control of the government, it ain't socialist.

Religion is the opium for masses

ROFLOL, Countries with high taxes and lots of social programs are not SOCIALIST.  You obviously don't know what socialism is.  Try again.  

-1/12 is not the actual sum.  Read it again, don't skip the important words :-)

Only if the universe can be reduced to computable, close-form functions.  How do you do that with infinities that are all around us since the Big Bang?

Name one socialist country that has prospered, or provided prosperity for their citizens.  Just one.

   China
    Denmark
    Finland
    Netherlands
    Canada
    Sweden
    Norway
    Ireland
    New Zealand
    Belgium

The top countries frequently have high values for all six of the key variables that contribute to overall well-being: income (GDP per capita), healthy life expectancy, social support, freedom, trust (absence of corruption) and generosity.

Here are the top 10 happiest countries and how they measure on the Cantril ladder:

1. Finland: 7.632
2. Norway: 7.594
3. Denmark: 7.555
4. Iceland: 7.495
5. Switzerland: 7.487
6. Netherlands: 7.441
7. Canada: 7.328
8. New Zealand: 7.324
9. Sweden: 7.314
10. Australia: 7.272