Science desk
< November 2	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 4 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 3

Do fibroblasts contain fibrin?

Thanks. Ben-Yeudith (talk) 06:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like it. Fibrin appears to only exist when the clotting cascade is activated, which causes thrombin to convert fibrinogen into fibrin. Fibrinogen, in turn, is only present in the blood; it's manufactured by the liver. Fibroblasts on the other hand hang out in body tissues and produce extracellular matrix and collagen. The names are presumably similar not because the two things are linked biologically, but because of structural similarities. Fibrin binds together to form long chains, to produce a blood clot, while connective tissue, where fibroblasts are found, often has a fibrous appearance. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 09:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fibroblasts actually react to fibrinogen by becoming more active [1] and/or replicating [2], and fibrin can contribute to a epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition that can create fibroblasts where they were previously (and properly) absent. [3] For the cell type to produce something it responds to would be an engineering challenge (though I'm not saying nature couldn't find a way).

Really, at first blush fibrinogen appears to be a liver gene, though if you look closely enough you can find traces of expression in odd places [4]. Trace expression can turn out to be very important, but then again if you look at practically any gene hard enough you have a fair chance of finding a trace of expression ... so this doesn't really prove or disprove anything, especially since the data I linked above is organ-specific rather than cell type-specific. Wnt (talk) 15:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Famous scientist who used prostitutes?

Hi,

Bit of an odd question, I know, but it's for a writing project. I was just wondering if anyone happened to know if any famous scientist (prior to 1935 so not Feynman heh) used prostitutes. Sorry to be so crass, but it's not the easiest thing to Google for heh. I swear this is a serious and adult writing project which happens to need this information heh. Dan Hartas (talk) 10:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfgang Pauli (1900-1958) was a frequent visitor of the Zurich red light district during his time as Professor of Theoretical Physics at ETH (1928-?), it seems. Although other sources say that he made frequent trips to Hamburg (Sankt Paili district) and Berlin... In 1929 he announced his marriage with a cabaret dancer. See source Ssscienccce (talk) 11:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So then the original Pauli exclusion principle was "No fat chicks" ? StuRat (talk) 00:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Benjamin Franklin, who was one of the most important scientific figures of the 18th century but not a full-time scientist, is known to have used strumpets, as he called them. John M Baker (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm overly sensitive, but is "used" the right word for a human? "Visited" would be a less demeaning alternative. Do I "use" a painter if he paints a wall for me? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Who do you use for your lawncare?" is a common construction. But I take you're point, just because it's common doesn't mean it's not also demeaning. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about prostitutes, but Feynman often bragged in print about his sexy exploits, e.g. hot tubbing with with beautiful naked ladies, playing bongos late into the night... SemanticMantis (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the OP finds it difficult to consider a 16 year old a famous scientist (even if he was already very smart at that age), hence why they ruled out Feynman. Nil Einne (talk) 16:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I missed the OP's mention of Feynman, as well as the time restriction. I'll read better next time :) SemanticMantis (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leonardo da Vinci was prosecuted (and acquitted) for consorting with Jacopo Saltarelli, a notorious Florentine rent boy, if that comes into the solution set. Tevildo (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Used" is an ambiguous term. Here's a quote from Henny Youngman: "A hooker came up to me on the street. She said, 'For 100 dollars, I'll do anything you want that you can say in 3 words or less.' I said, 'Paint my house!'" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Know any good links to convince my dad of evolution?

I need a link to show clearly how carbon dating works (he thinks it's unreliable), as well as how other dating methods of fossils work. Their Wikipedia articles don't do this very well. Also, a link showing the fossil record of humans and other animals would be good. Again, the article List of human evolution fossils doesn't work so well for this. Thanks, 2.102.187.59 (talk) 16:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The TalkOrigins Archive at http://talkorigins.org is one of the best resources for this. For the claim on unreliability of carbon dating, see http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011.html. For radiometric dating in general, there is http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html. There is a list of hominid fossils at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html. You can dig around the site for ages and find more stuff. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the first question is "Why are you convinced?" Start with the material that convinced you and it will be easier to explain. It's also a good cross-check to find out individual misconceptions by characterizing your own thoughts and beliefs and then comparing them to others. --DHeyward (talk) 16:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The very simple point is that we always find more primitive ancestral forms (or some lines that have simply gone extinct) below more recently deposited layers in the geological record that have more derived (more advanced) forms. Fish, but not pre-Cambrian rabbits in layers below layers with the most primitive amphibians, layers with amphibians below the first layers with early reptiles. Reptiles below layers with birds and mammals.

This is grade-school stuff that doesn't need one to be able to understand what the half-life of radioactive decay is. Arguing that carbon dating is unreliable is a very sophisticated objection to a very simple fact. To object to the obvious fact of evolution by doubting the physics of carbon dating is like denying you have diabetes when you are always thirsty, get up at night to drink and pee, have sores and nerve pain in your extremities, have weight and vision problems, and your urine tastes sweet if you sample it, but you object that your glucose meter may not be accurate.

Is there some more fundamental reason that your father doubts the obvious? μηδείς (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you some reason for wanting to get into an argument with your father, what on earth difference does it make to you whether he believes in it or not? Evolution offends many peoples idea of their position in the world and rational arguments for iit will just offend them more. Do this with people with whom it doesn't matter whether you get on well with them or not. Dmcq (talk) 17:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unless he's open to new information and is openly unsure of his religious beliefs, trying to convince him will do nothing but create ill will between the two of you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I provided a three different sources for you to look at. The first is the easiest to understand, its just a quick youtube video on carbon dating. The second is an in-depth book on fossil records. The third is a very scientific-heavy article on another type of time-dating.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54e5Bz7m3do

https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=EPKGnF7oZXgC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=human+fossil+records&ots=lS1qIky-oV&sig=X7ztZtJsM6Zmp9VdQTK7VlqJ4cM#v=onepage&q=human%20fossil%20records&f=false

http://jmammal.oxfordjournals.org/content/jmammal/82/2/280.full.pdf

Atsand 19 (talk) 18:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with most proof is that those who don't believe in evolution don't believe in science either, so no scientific proof would convince them. I suggest taking him to a natural history museum, and showing him the dinosaur skeletons. You will need to find some which are complete or nearly complete, not mostly the fake white "bone" they use to fill in gaps, as that will cause him to doubt the results. But it's hard to look at a complete T-Rex skeleton and not think that life has evolved considerably since then. The only way around that is to believe in a massive conspiracy theory where every dino skeleton is completely fake. StuRat (talk) 18:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the exhibits in the Creation Museum show otherwise ;-) Dmcq (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way I thought the disputed tag in Wikimedia commons on this picture of humans and dinosaurs coexisting was hilarious - "This dinosaur restoration is inaccurate, or its accuracy is disputed. Reason: No feathers + Skull clearly based on that of the baby T. rex in The Lost World: Jurassic Park rather than on actual fossil material." Dmcq (talk) 19:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions guys. I think YouTube videos would be the best bet. He's not dumb or anything but he's convinced he's right and so wouldn't see the point in reading pages of text. The YouTube video on carbon dating was good. Does anybody know one for the fossil record of humans/other animals? Also, we're not having an argument or anything, and he doesn't take it deadly seriously (unlike my granddad). 2.102.187.59 (talk) 19:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are actually, typically, three stages of disbelief...

That evolution is still happening - the fact that bacteria are evolving to avoid being killed by antibiotics, is a very clear - almost impossible to dispute thing.
That animals and plants evolved from simpler forms is usually a harder sell.
The toughest thing of all is to convince doubters that humans evolved from simpler forms.

The business of arguing against these things depends on you understanding which (perhaps all) are in doubt here. SteveBaker (talk) 20:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's an important argument you left out: That any apparent evidence which contradicts the Bible was placed there by Satan. And if someone truly believes that, the argument is over. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. However, there are believing Christians who state that radiometric dating does not contradict their faith: [5]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Radiocarbon dating? Why pick on that? Its usefulness is great for many purposes, but in evolution studies it's pretty minor. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very common creationist trope to argue that radiocarbon dating doesn't work and therefore evolution is a lie. The talk.origins archive linked above has a whole subsection just on carbon dating. You're right that there's oodles of other evidence for evolution, but none of that prevents people with a preconceived belief from cherry picking evidence that supports their belief. "This one study using radiocarbon dating was later found to be inaccurate. Therefore all science is wrong!" --71.119.131.184 (talk) 23:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you have an abundance of time, I highly recommend the original Cosmos; it includes a detailed (if just slightly dated) understanding of the topic, will contextualize it within the broader framework of the physical universe and the origin of life, and there may not have been a person ever born that had a better gift for distilling these kinds of complex topics down to simple but still elegant language that draws in the expert and the layman alike. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some on the side of rationality mount an all-out counterattack, impugning the integrity or sanity of dissenters. I figure such an attitude, however justified by those personalities, works better to defend a foolish doctrine than a wise one, so it's best omitted. This discussion reminds me of another on the topic, years ago with a colleague at the telephone exchange.

-Evolutionists are foolish and depend on carbon dating, which is entirely unreliable.

-Radiocarbon is useful in some works of geochronology, being highly precise out to a few tens of thousands of years. Beyond that, it rapidly loses precision and has little use beyond about a hundred thousand, which is too short for most work on evolution.

-No, evolutionists think carbon dating is the be-all and end-all for ancient dating forever.

-No problem, then I'm not an evolutionist.

-What, you mean evolution never happened?

-No, evolution happens. However, I don't believe in the doctrine that your definition of "evolutionist" requires me to believe. No problem. If you change the definition maybe I'll fit the new one, thus becoming an evolutionist. However, evolution started before I was defined, and redefining me won't make it stop. Many things happen in the world, and not many of them depend on me.

As it happens this is a reasonable fellow; just excessively attentive to tendentious foolishness. I didn't convince him that I was right, but my ambition was more modest than that. Presumably there are many hopeless cases who would retreat into vituperation; no use bothering with them. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An even more succinct argument his father could pose would be, "Why should I care?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's something to be said when a father looks at his son and says "I don't believe in evolution." Maybe just "Q.E.D." --DHeyward (talk) 08:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To the OP: There's an aphorism which states "You cannot reason a person out of a position they did not reason themselves into" Disbelief in the general concept of biological evolution is dogmatic, and not based on reason or evidence. The answer is "you cannot, so stop trying". Knowing when to fish or cut bait is a useful skill to have in life, and if someone has reached the level of not believing in evolution (which is akin to not believing the earth travels around the sun, or is a round object that turns on its axis) then they are what we like to call a "lost cause" and, in my experience, it's best to not even try anymore. Your energy is best spent on other things. --Jayron 32 02:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's always the case. From what I've seen, a lot of people have questions about evolution just out of ignorance and misconception ("How come there are still monkeys?"). They're open to learning, if you can figure out what questions they have, and present evidence in a straightforward fashion. Primary education in many countries isn't that great at systematizing knowledge, and often focuses more on rote memorization than elucidating the connections between things, so even many people who've been through formal education don't have a great grasp of evolutionary theory. Evolution is not something that's immediately obvious, since it generally takes timescales much longer than a human lifespan for its effects to become really apparent. To contrast with your other examples, today it's really easy to show people evidence against geocentrism or a flat earth: just show them pictures from space. Now I do agree that real hard-core creationists are a lost cause, since they've usually decided that evolution must be false and any evidence to the contrary is either misinterpreted or part of a conspiracy. Similarly, there are still some flat-earthers and geocentrists even today. But the original poster's dad sounds like he might belong more to the first camp. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 02:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is most frustrating about the creationists is that their dogma rests on a notion of a God with limited powers. A human author can write a backstory for his creation - he doesn't just put pen to paper and write in chronological order, but expands the pasts of his characters and world as he goes along. Why should God then have to look at a calendar and see it's November 4 2015, so that's what He has to write about? Why can't God go back at any time and decide that a flat world makes more sense as a ball, sketch out galaxies to fill the skies, fill the rocks with fossils that attest to a more consistent natural history? There's no need for creation and evolution to have any conflict with one another. Wnt (talk) 04:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Umm no, it doesn't rest on that at all. Quite the opposite. The underpinnings of creationism are "faith" and it is a failing of man that leads to question their faith or deny god. A test of faith would be an all powerful God that gives man all sorts of worldly clues and opportunities to deny god (i.e. fossil records, stars, galaxies, etc) while also asking man to take his word for it. That's a simple test of faith and has nothing to do science. An all-powerful god can have any history that tempts man to deny him. A test of faith doesn't have reconciliation as an outcome, whence creationism doesn't need scientific backing. It's generally not a lack of understanding or knowledge. The first story in genesis is "faith" falling to "knowledge" and is a constant religious theme. --DHeyward (talk) 06:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Satan deceives. God does not deceive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]