SciencexMedia is a media production unit working within Global Development of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (CALS) at Cornell University. We produce non-fiction science-based films and videos for clients across the University who value the importance of visual media for science communication and education. SciencexMedia supports Cornell research projects through the production of science advocacy films and animations for use by the general public, donors, and project partners. Since 2011 our event recording and live streaming services have captured more than 400 Cornell events for archive and distribution to audiences worldwide.
The impression I get from the lecture and flow charts is that all of the available phosphorous should have been locked up in inaccessible forms millions of years ago. Even if the locking up was a slow process, eventually all of the sources will be exhausted. But this locking up is NOT a slow process but a intense one. It seems there is a missing piece somewhere, some other path for the phosphorous to be freed up again from the unusable forms.
Obesity begins in the womb. A fortunate fetus has no or very few fat cells and this person will be forever slim. No amount of food intake or type of food, can or will make this person fat. The unfortunate fetus has millions of fat cells, and as this person grows up, the fat cells fill up and there's no going back. Food intake has nothing to do, with obesity. Documented research has proven, that dietary excess is NOT the cause of obesity. Nobody knows how or why some people have the millions of fat cells
Good lecturing, I'm a second year student I need more lecture in plants anatomy and physiology, I'm also asking a lecturer text book plant anatomy and physiology
Makes sence for photoperiod plants to have light as an activator for phosporilation or de phosphorulation .I suppose non photoperiod plants obviously have their own process related some way.
I listened to enough of Mark's speech to sense that he has missed the most important principle that many Europeans and others who eschew genetically modified food intuitively understand: Just as our Creator designed human beings so exquisitely that even the most gifted scientists do not understand everything there is to know, our Creator also supernaturally designed the food to sustain us. The properties of our food are very likely so precisely synchronized to our bodies that scientists lack thorough understanding of what they are modifying. This ignorance possibly poses horrifying risks of GMO foods to both human and animal bodies. I suspect that the damage from GMO food might be far more serious to our bodies and to our environment than anything else that might be damaging our environment. Scientists are altering the building blocks of our existence whether they will admit this or not. The changes might be subtle now, but we must understand that we are no longer working in sync with God's design for our survival now; instead, His design is being altered continuously. Moreover, because of the deception that pervades every realm of our lives, by the time that scientists are compelled to reveal irreversible horrors, it may be too late to save our species from considerable damage. We do not need scientists to tell us what we know about God's omniscience, nor about humanity's incorrigible arrogance and stupidity. We should be mindful that God has not revealed everything that we wish to know about our bodies, nor about our food; yet our food is being modified. With all respect to Mark, this is not a topic that calls for an articulate historian. What is needed now is respect for the universe that God created, and confidence that He will manage His population as He sees fit. Brilliant scientists, many of whom deny the existence of God, are not called to modify the building blocks of food in order to save the population. They must understand that God is still in control of His entire universe and everything within it. The possibility that many might die, because of inadequate conventionally grown food might be far less devastating to the perpetuation of humanity than tampering with a supernatural paradigm that human beings may not be allowed by our Creator to understand fully. Intelligent researchers simply do not know when to stop; driven by curiosity and the need for power, they are determined to exceed boundaries, and destined to destroy all of us and themselves. Therefore, each of us must think for ourselves and trust our Creator. I will avoid GMO foods, because God's design is already perfect. Meanwhile, I trust the changes in food that God allows naturally as part of His design, but I do not trust mortal hands modifying the building blocks of sacred food. I firmly believe that America should have said, "NO" to genetically modified food, but it might be too late now. We know so little about God's design that merely touching genetically modified food with our hands might already have harmed us. We simply do not know enough about the amazingly mysterious phenomenon called "food" designed to sustain us and perpetuate our species, but I sense far too many sacred and supernatural truths pertaining to food for anyone to have had the audacity to modify it.
Its a good lessons but againt I will have to say when I am learning something I think its as important to know how it works in a practical term and how you apply that ``right away`` to the thing your trying to solve, like with tomato bottom end rot were I learned the big tomatos was not getting enough water beacuse of calcium deficiency, so it meant using alot of water on those plants and I had to use alot in the start and also used some wood chips, but when planting squasch there were a complete diffrent strategy that was almost the opposite, but I learn best when I see the things I do and then apply the theory and not heavy theory in the start, but I think people are just diffrent that way though, it just sucks that most school show you the theory or at least when I went to school they showed the theory for 3 years(not this subject) and then I forgot about it instead of learning by doing beacuse its fun and intresting and then going back to the theory, I would say thats is one of the big problems (for me at least) when learning math that I couldent see it in a practical term in the start and then apply it, but I am terrible at math though
Makes me feel better listening to these students.I've self taught for 6 years and no university. The teacher has a pasion still so that's good to know as not all teacherscan teach
Hello Thomas owens i found this lecture very fruitful to me thanks for sharing this kind of stuff it was really worth watching being a student of Master there were many flaws in my mind they all cleared up by ur informative lecture.... So thank you so much
I want to congratulate Prof. Davies on one outstanding comment, and amplify. Was the research an investigation, or was it designed to prove a foregone conclusion? It's not immediately apparent to most people what the difference is between these two. But the issue is bias. If the researcher has already formed an opinion, especially an opinion with an emotional attachment, bias is almost inevitably going to sneak in. If you are a qualified scientist in the same field as the research, you might have a chance to read a paper and spot method problems. For most of us, no way. But there is something we ordinary people can do that is surprisingly effective, at least in the extreme cases. Just look at the public statement of the principle researcher, from before the research was done? Quite often, the most obviously biased researcher will have made public comments praising other research that produced his favored result. In extreme cases, this is the only public persona you can find for the researcher. Where have you ever seen the name Seralini, except for his criticism of GMO food? Wa it perhaps when he sued various people and organisations to get the data behind a GMO safety study? Was it organizing a street demonstration? Making a documentary movie. Can you find a case where the researcher praised any aspect of a pro-GMO article? Etc. You may even find people whose bias is so strong that they continue to defend research papers even after the original author of the paper was made aware of an error and retracted it? This is a real thing! It really happens.
