Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#3 - AnonymousDonor (08/22/2013) [-]
ask a 17 year old about biochemistry and can you honestly expect a correct answer?

this is all ******** and so so wrong - the only correct statement is that oxygen oxidizes things
******* genius
User avatar #87 to #3 - drainbramage (08/22/2013) [-]
Whether it's a right or wrong answer, you're forgetting a very important fact.

He's talking to an 8 year old girl.
#89 to #87 - AnonymousDonor (08/22/2013) [-]
oh yeah yano i think you're right

when a child asks a question, it doesn't matter whether you tell them the sky is falling or slavery is okay

so long as they're young, that's all that matters right?
User avatar #90 to #89 - drainbramage (08/22/2013) [-]
Not in all cases, just when it comes to some scientific ******** that only a few can understand.
#93 to #90 - AnonymousDonor (08/22/2013) [-]
*strive to understand

anyone can understand "scientific ******** " because it all uses the same principles incorporated in every day thought
but if you psych yourself into thinking its too hard well then yeah it doesn't matter what people tell you because you'll never learn anyway
User avatar #94 to #93 - drainbramage (08/22/2013) [-]
Some people just can't comprehend some things, it's a fact of life, I will never be able to understand chemistry, and oh lord how I have tried, even after hours of lessons and studying the exam was still gibberish to me.

I also can't understand the appeal of Lil Wayne, yet he has fans. The human mind is relative to the individual, just because you can understand something with ease doesn't mean someone else will ever be able to understand it.
#95 to #94 - AnonymousDonor (08/22/2013) [-]
well actually it can all be explained by quantum bayesianism - i'm sure you'll assume you can't understand it either (and the full thing does get slightly complex) but if you can wrap your head around the fact that all reality exists only in the mind (because everything we sense is just a trigger to the mind, where all reality exists) then QBism can be quite simply (though not thoroughly) understood as the idea that if you're expecting a certain outcome, you will interpret all observations as evidence for the outcome you wish to see

this is why you will never be able to prove to a religious person that god doesn't exist, nor prove to an atheist that he might, and it is precisely why you will never learn chemistry - because you were expecting to simply learn enough to get by, rather than to learn the trick (because everything has a trick that makes it much easier) of chemistry, see how it applies to all aspects of life, and realize how easy the answer was all along had you just been lucky or hardworking enough to recognize it

the human mind is nothing if not relative to the individual, but it is foremost guided and controlled by that individual, not the other way around

case in point: even if I'm wrong (and in the utmost extreme cases that's probably so), no amount of evidence to the contrary will ever convince me otherwise
#21 to #3 - anon (08/22/2013) [-]
Well, the "brother" could be lying. I make **** up all the time whenever my brothers ask me something.
User avatar #5 to #3 - agrani (08/22/2013) [-]
Oxygen does kill you
You need it to produce energy in your cells, but it also produces 2 extra electrons, wich go to an oxigen atom and form a radical
Put simply, these radicals attack your DNA bases and make cell reproduction slower and less efective, wich is why you grow old, and might even be responsible for cancer, by atacking lipids and protein responsable for the cells oxigen intake (a cell that has less than 60% of its oxygen requirements turns cancerous)
Its not that it sets you on fire, but yea, exposion to oxigen is what makes you age and die
#171 to #5 - dexw (08/22/2013) [-]
Actually you can't blame oxygen for killing you, it's more wider area of metabolism that causes aging. It's too large issue (aging) to explain in a funnyjunk comment so I'll just say the following:
- radicals are actually needed in body in order to exterminate harmful and undentified particles and also used against bacteria and so on
- I think you're talking about glycolysis as the form of energy produce. That's a reaction that doesn't form free electrons to create radicals, if it did, we'd be full of radicals since the ammount of this reaction going on in our body is massive. These "free extra electrons" you're talking about are actually from the part reaction of NAD+ -> NADH which basicly means more reduction power to other reactions of the metabolism
#143 to #5 - anon (08/22/2013) [-]
If I take slower breaths will I live longer?
#98 to #5 - anon (08/22/2013) [-]
ageing is a product of the degradation of youe DNA's telomeres which is in part due to oxidation of essential protiens in the cell, but is far from the only or even majority reason for ageing
#92 to #5 - DrollHumor (08/22/2013) [-]
From what I remember about cellular respiration is that at the end of the electron transfer chain is oxygen, which receives the two extra electrons to form water which is a waste product.

I don't remember anything about radical oxygens attacking anything. What does cause our cells to die is that every time DNA replicates it must "zip" and "unzip" the amino acids in certain directions, this process is not a hundred percent efficient and actually ends up losing a couple amino acids off the ends of the DNA. This is counteracted by the ends of the DNA being sacrificable caps called telomeres. Once those telomeres are gone, the amino acids that are important (the ones that code for proteins) are being lost, so that's the end of the cell's life and it preforms apoptosis or "cell suicide". (The "immortal" and very cancerous HeLa cells rebuild their telomeres somehow, that's they why never die.)

Also in DNA replication there are mutations or "mistakes". Most of the time they are corrected without any problems, but sometimes, every so often, it goes unchecked and we have bad DNA copies making crappy proteins and cells. That's why as we get older we accumulate more of these mutations that cause our body to not work as well as it did before. It's also why older people are more susceptible to cancer.

TL;DR Never heard of what you're talking about in any of my bio classes here in my University.
User avatar #174 to #92 - agrani (08/22/2013) [-]
form that chain of electrons, water is formed, and 2 electrons remain, wich form radicals, by binding with oxygen molecules
#34 to #5 - infinitereaper (08/22/2013) [-]
And then we've got those biologically immortal ******* like the jellyfish with path of the pedo to reset lifespan and coral or some **** that just lives and lives.

I thought aging had more to do with the fact our DNA strands or whatever get shorter and shorter each time they split?

This loss of genetic material makes us decay until we have nothing left, in fact I believe that immortality is more or less linked to DNA strands stopping the shortening process.
#166 to #34 - gisuar (08/22/2013) [-]
Large lobsters are estimated to have aged up to 60 years old, although determining age is difficult.[9]

Research suggests that lobsters may not slow down, weaken, or lose fertility with age, and that older lobsters may be more fertile than younger lobsters. This longevity may be due to telomerase, an enzyme that repairs DNA sequences of the form "TTAGGG". Lobsters express telomerase as adults through most tissue, which has been suggested to be related to their longevity.[10] This sequence, repeated hundreds of times, occurs at the ends of chromosomes and are referred to as telomeres.[11][12]

Lobsters, like many other decapod crustaceans, grow throughout life, and are able to add new muscle cells at each molt.[13] Lobster longevity allows them to reach impressive sizes. According to Guinness World Records, the largest lobster ever caught was in Nova Scotia, Canada, weighing 20.15 kilograms (44.4 lb).[14][15]

User avatar #39 to #34 - gidmp (08/22/2013) [-]
you mean Turritopsis Nutricula? yeah those ******* can revert to their early stage of reproduction through a specialized cell development called transdifferentiation, but i don't know the detail.
User avatar #47 to #39 - agrani (08/22/2013) [-]
id love to read up on that, seems like an awesome thing to do some research about
User avatar #54 to #47 - gidmp (08/22/2013) [-]
it is, but there are not too much detail on it i think...for now.
User avatar #56 to #54 - agrani (08/22/2013) [-]
i hope they make breakthroughs tho
they could harness some of that knowledge to human kind, i hope
User avatar #59 to #56 - gidmp (08/22/2013) [-]
Yeah, it could be useful for stem cells and gene therapy, but making a human immortal is gonna be a really bad idea tho' unless that person is Morgan Freeman.
User avatar #62 to #59 - agrani (08/22/2013) [-]
i dont believe we will reach imortallity, atleast not in this century
it would possibly mean we would have to redesing humans
but, prolonging cell life, especially in donor blood and organs seems like a great idea
one can only wait to see what they will uncover next
User avatar #67 to #62 - gidmp (08/22/2013) [-]
if we live that long of course. Do you mean prolonging the lifespan of entire human cells and preserve the younger state of physical body or do you mean to apply it only to blood and organs?
User avatar #37 to #34 - agrani (08/22/2013) [-]
they obtain energy for their cells in a different, less effective process, wich doesnt envolve oxygen, altough im not really sure about what makes some jellyfish potentially immortal
DNA has something to do with it, but again, oxygen
DNA is perfectly replicated in your cells, if it isnt, that cell is destroyed
And thats kind of it
Oxygen destroys parts of DNA, making defective cells, wich are destryed, so to speak
ti put it in an easy way, Radicals of oxygen mess with your DNA's...erm...im missing the word here...your DNA's intergrity so to speak, wich leads to more and more cells being destroyed due to defectiveness, and less of new cells being formed, caused also by the destruction of more old cells
you pretty much stop making as many new cells as you do when you are young
User avatar #40 to #37 - infinitereaper (08/22/2013) [-]
But oxygen isn't really the issue is it? I mean, if the DNA rate of repair/loss overcomes the rate of destruction then.... well that's all that matters right?

I guess I just don't like the implications that "oxygen death" is inevitable and the sole cause of death, because it isn't right?

If not oxygen is my enemy.
User avatar #48 to #40 - gidmp (08/22/2013) [-]
oxygen is both your reason to live and die, since it is also essential in producing energy. So, it is a give and take situation i think. and the real enemy is the 'radical' not oxygen itself
User avatar #51 to #48 - infinitereaper (08/22/2013) [-]
I figured
User avatar #53 to #51 - gidmp (08/22/2013) [-]
sorry for the repetition then.
User avatar #45 to #40 - agrani (08/22/2013) [-]
It is
DNA is ALWAYS perfectly copied, in terms of creating a new cell, what happens is, oxygen radicals have a series of reactions that lead to destruction, or interference with DNA, ******* up their integrety and shape overall
this causes that the new cells formed from that DNA sequence to be defective, wich leads either to apapthosis (celular suicide) or your immune system detects those cells and destroys them
so, basicly its math (this is veeeeery simplified)
When you were young, you could make 4 cells out of 2
as you get older, you might make 1 cell out of 2, or 2 out of 2
This acts in all parts of your body, brain and heart included, so id causes death
Oxygen is essencial, you need it to produce energy, because the other process of energy making is not efective enough for humans, and potencial cancerous, im not sure
So, what oxigen does is a trade, either die instantly without oxygen, or live 80 years until it "kills" you
User avatar #52 to #45 - infinitereaper (08/22/2013) [-]
but not all species

therefore this is not absolute
User avatar #55 to #52 - agrani (08/22/2013) [-]
i am talking solely about human kind
there are bacterias who dont use oxygen at all
but they replace it by sulfur, wich ends up doing the same
if you really want to believe that oxygen isnt that bad, its up to you, im just telling you what i know
User avatar #57 to #55 - infinitereaper (08/22/2013) [-]
a man can dream about immortality

a man can dream, I mean, if even one species can potentially live forever, it's worth noting.
User avatar #58 to #57 - agrani (08/22/2013) [-]
Hey, we more than doubled life expectancy so far, and some said that would never fly, yet we have airplanes
We still dont know the limitations of science, so anything is possible
and, well i dont know if i would like that
living forever might seem fun, but i think its just human nature to want more
you will get bored eventually
User avatar #63 to #58 - infinitereaper (08/22/2013) [-]
but I'm bored with mortality,
we haven't really doubled life expectancy, I'm pretty sure that's just a misconception for the most part, with infant mortality, common sense health knowledge, hygiene, sanitation and all.

Sure a 25% boost maybe. but I've seen some old people.

That ain't being alive.

User avatar #72 to #63 - agrani (08/22/2013) [-]
You wont get to immortality yourself, nor will i, i can tell you that much
It would require to change human chemestry to another level, we would have to geneticly bioengineer embrios and what not
that would lead to a massive **** strom about ethics, as human cloning did, cus you know, people care about ****
User avatar #73 to #72 - infinitereaper (08/22/2013) [-]
I don't think it's very likely but we have barely scratched the surface on this whole biology jig.
User avatar #77 to #73 - agrani (08/22/2013) [-]
this of what im talking about is not going to be made early, i mean
100 years might not be enough
we might even know how to do it by then, but lack the thechnology, or the means to do so, who knows?
#25 to #5 - JHDog (08/22/2013) [-]
well how do you explain that back in the day average lifespan was significantly lower than it is today and how it's increasing (slightly) year to year?
User avatar #44 to #25 - infinitereaper (08/22/2013) [-]
infant mortality
for ***** sake
#35 to #25 - gidmp (08/22/2013) [-]
It is also because of the revolution of technology, medicine and any other anti-microbial substances, since it is until recently that vaccine and antibiotics are truly accessible by everyone. People in the past tend to live a shorter life due to how easily they influenced by pathogens that could kill them, example: black death that kills 1/3 populations of Europe, biofilms that formed on the medical equipments that are not properly sterilized. Also how the conditions of agriculture, aka food production, at that time significantly worse than nowadays greatly influence the average global lifespan. and lotsa other things play their part too.
User avatar #30 to #25 - agrani (08/22/2013) [-]
Mostly, the life span of people was 30 years, not because of aging, but desease
We lived in caves for a long time
then we said that showering was bad
then we had alot of desiases (no idea how to write that right) that had no apparent cure
we found alot of remedies, vaccines and life habits that made us live longer
a cure against oxygen remains unknown
#23 to #5 - AnonymousDonor (08/22/2013) [-]
not quite

it is the ability of oxygen to create those radicals that permits the formation of life and organic substances in the first place

obviously, it is still as toxic to organic compounds as it is to anything else, but because life itself is centered around oxygen, our evolution has done the best it can to compensate (such as in the peroxisomes in the cell, or the DNA repairing sequences in the nucleus) and it does a damn fine job of doing it

the fact that we can live so long or that so many of us don't have cancer when we should is nothing short of an oxygen-based miracle

but if you're gonna go with the fact that oxygen can be hazardous and equate that with it killing you, then you might as well point out that every element in your body is doing the same thing (not simultaneously of course, but then again neither is oxygen) as they all decay not even to mention the chemical reactions in various forms and spit out neutrons, electrons, positrons, or any other particles that corrode and destroy cells - but guess what? these, too, are compensated for by the body's immune systems and the DNA's apoptotic (self-destructing) algorithms

User avatar #31 to #23 - lateday (08/22/2013) [-]
I don't think the immune system has anything to do with free radicals... But I get ya.
#32 to #31 - AnonymousDonor (08/22/2013) [-]
no i meant the immune system in terms of lymphocytes attacking cancerous cells that haven't apoptized
User avatar #41 to #32 - lateday (08/22/2013) [-]
Ok. It's just that you were talking about subatomic particles gone astray and you claimed the immune system was our defense to that.
#46 to #41 - AnonymousDonor (08/22/2013) [-]
well...i didnt say it was the direct response its just separated by a few degrees of action

the particles collide and corrode, the cell recognizes and tries to fix it (DNA repair or otherwise), then it might selfdestruct, and if all else fails it sends in the cavalry

in a way the immune system is responsible, but it is only one of many
User avatar #29 to #23 - agrani (08/22/2013) [-]
not that it can be hazardous, it is hazardous
Your immune system constantly destroys cells that could have turned into cancer daily, and the sole fact that you need to inhale oxygen to create energy for your cells is responsable for the radicals
everything is toxic at some dose, true, but not one of the other elements on our body has only one job (accept electron in the electron reaction chain) and then it turns bad
Your immune system does a great job, but it cannot match the destruction rate of oxygen radicals in your body
in sum, yes alot of toxic stuff happens in your body, but nothing is as responsable for aging as oxygen
#43 to #29 - AnonymousDonor (08/22/2013) [-]
umm the non-polar nature of the organic compounds that accept the radicals? entropy itself?

whatever it hardly matters because the only beef i had was with people who think that oxygen is literally a poison
as in one that can be gotten rid of

look you don't seem to be entirely ignorant, just approaching the same knowledge from a different perspective
User avatar #49 to #43 - agrani (08/22/2013) [-]
i have to agree
oxygen isnt a ******* poison, not at all, its essencial, and any other element that would do its job would possibly make us live even less
its just. its not enterely wrong, not total " ******** "
User avatar #50 to #49 - agrani (08/22/2013) [-]
plus, if this is real, explaining how oxygen works to an 8 year old woud have to be done like that, or even more simple
id spare my sister the trouble of learning biochemestry at the age of 8
#60 to #50 - AnonymousDonor (08/22/2013) [-]
*sigh* that's what's been bothering you this whole time?
let's recap

>"oxygen oxidizes stuff in your cells, or in other words, it's not toxic but setting you on fire very, very slowly"

i said that all that was ******** except the fact that oxygen oxidizes
--we've already established that it is not setting you on fire, as we both (should) know that actual fire is only triggered by certain components at a certain temperature, depending on the fuel
--we have also [eventually] agreed that oxygen is toxic albeit necessarily so

the only valid point that he brought up was the obvious; all else was ********

and if my sister wanted to learn biochemistry at the age of 8, I'd tell her the full truth with as colorful of metaphors as necessary until she either understood it or got sick and tired of hearing me preach about it -- biochem's an important stepping stone to more advanced knowledge and i only wish people had told me more when i was that young
User avatar #65 to #60 - agrani (08/22/2013) [-]
8 years old isnt enought to fully grasp it, thats why school is in cresent order of dificulty
When you say total ******** , i assume you were talking about the "oxygen takes 80 years to kill you" aswell, not about the teenager quotes alone, hance the post explaning oxygen stuff
#68 to #65 - AnonymousDonor (08/22/2013) [-]
well..technically that's not entirely true either since it can kill a lot faster - though obviously it's not entirely false

and an 8 year old is a full year past the generalized "age of reason"
if someone can relate the concepts well enough, I'll bet you can teach an 8 year old just about anything.....hell if they were willing to listen, I could probably teach them quantum mechanics with the right metaphors
User avatar #76 to #68 - agrani (08/22/2013) [-]
Glad we sorted that out then

"willing to listen" thats the key stone here
im not an expert in child psychology, but, when a child asks you hard questions, they expect easy answers so then can go on with playing or whatever
i try to explain easy stuff to my 7 year old sister, and i can barely make her listen past 4 minutes
as i see it, try teaching an 8 year old quantum mechanics as much as you want, but i dont think hes gonna really understand it
#91 to #76 - AnonymousDonor (08/22/2013) [-]
yeah but the most important thing in life is to realize nothing worthwhile comes easy

they want an easy answer? i'll certainly make it as easy to understand as possible, but they can't go through life thinking quantum mechanics is simple (even though....it kind of is...) or they become like every other bandwagon person who learns a little bit about something and thinks they know it all
User avatar #24 to #23 - decay ONLINE (08/22/2013) [-]
An AnonymousDonor saved my life once.
User avatar #27 to #26 - decay ONLINE (08/22/2013) [-]
you mentioned my name and that was the only way I could think of to mention your name.
#28 to #27 - AnonymousDonor (08/22/2013) [-]
and here you had me thinking you were a transplant patient XD
User avatar #10 to #5 - funnychemaster ONLINE (08/22/2013) [-]
User avatar #14 to #10 - agrani (08/22/2013) [-]
jesus i make a post, half asleep about science and how oxygen and its radicals are bad for you and you still throw **** at me about an i
User avatar #9 to #5 - srskate (08/22/2013) [-]
legit question here, but are there two different spelling of oxygen?
User avatar #13 to #9 - funnychemaster ONLINE (08/22/2013) [-]
Yea.. there isn't
User avatar #11 to #9 - agrani (08/22/2013) [-]
not really, its just, where i come from, oxygen is written with "i" , but in english its with "y"
i just write careleslyy at this time of the day
User avatar #12 to #11 - agrani (08/22/2013) [-]
as you can notice by my carelessly
User avatar #16 to #12 - funnychemaster ONLINE (08/22/2013) [-]
Sorry man, the original post set off my inner need to find something wrong, and when I saw your comment I agreed, but still wanted the satisfaction.
User avatar #17 to #16 - agrani (08/22/2013) [-]
i understand the need to satisfy your inner nazi then
 Friends (0)