Using Mould Killller Spray On Car
Motoring2 mins ago
respiration
Why is food important for respiration?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by fiesta44. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
This explains it very well. http://www.sambal.co.uk/respiration.html
Food is NOT important for respiration, CARBOHYDRATE is (usually in the form of a monosaccharide), although it does rather depend on your definition of food. If you define food as something ingested, then I am correct.
Take as an example, green plants. They do not eat food, yet they respire. The source of carbohydrate for the respiration within plants is the product of photosynthesis during daylight (glucose).
Take as an example, green plants. They do not eat food, yet they respire. The source of carbohydrate for the respiration within plants is the product of photosynthesis during daylight (glucose).
How does cellular respiration take place without food?
Nothing in the question mentioned ingested.
Perhaps these people have all got it wrong too!
http://www.biotopics.co.uk/humans/respro.html
http://biology.clc.uc.edu/Courses/bio104/cellr esp.htm
http://www.sirinet.net/~jgjohnso/respiration.h tml
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/Biol ogyPages/C/CellularRespiration.html
http://staff.jccc.net/PDECELL/cellresp/respint ro.html
http://mvhs1.mbhs.edu/mvhsproj/CellResp/cell_m odelB.html
Nothing in the question mentioned ingested.
Perhaps these people have all got it wrong too!
http://www.biotopics.co.uk/humans/respro.html
http://biology.clc.uc.edu/Courses/bio104/cellr esp.htm
http://www.sirinet.net/~jgjohnso/respiration.h tml
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/Biol ogyPages/C/CellularRespiration.html
http://staff.jccc.net/PDECELL/cellresp/respint ro.html
http://mvhs1.mbhs.edu/mvhsproj/CellResp/cell_m odelB.html
TechGirl, I'll start off by telling you that I'm a bit of an old hand on AB.
Now, those that have been on AB for some time will tell you that in recent months there have been occasions when links have been provided to websites that, at best, do not fully explain a subject and at worst, are let's say, economical with the truth. I'm sure you realise that such sites are endemic on the internet.
Now let me be clear about this. I'm not accusing anyone of deliberately citing misleading links. However, I'm sure you'll agree that unless one is a qualified scientist, there are times when it's difficult to sort out the wheat from the chaff.
The point I was making was that although I have absolutely no doubt that HWKE provided the link in good faith, it is all too easy to use and believe in the first link you come across when Googling for the answer.
As to my behaviour, although you seem to have taken it the wrong way, my sole intention was to suggest to the reader that the first link on a search engine is sometimes not the best link No cynicism or belittling was intended.
Now, those that have been on AB for some time will tell you that in recent months there have been occasions when links have been provided to websites that, at best, do not fully explain a subject and at worst, are let's say, economical with the truth. I'm sure you realise that such sites are endemic on the internet.
Now let me be clear about this. I'm not accusing anyone of deliberately citing misleading links. However, I'm sure you'll agree that unless one is a qualified scientist, there are times when it's difficult to sort out the wheat from the chaff.
The point I was making was that although I have absolutely no doubt that HWKE provided the link in good faith, it is all too easy to use and believe in the first link you come across when Googling for the answer.
As to my behaviour, although you seem to have taken it the wrong way, my sole intention was to suggest to the reader that the first link on a search engine is sometimes not the best link No cynicism or belittling was intended.
HWKE, there are some good links there.
What are you asking in your first question? Mentioned ingested what? What are you saying?
As to people getting it wrong, go back and read my post. I said that "the link you cite leaves a great deal to be desired" and . "believe me, it does not explain it very well".
I did not say that the writer "got it wrong"
I'll tell you what though, some of those links you've given provide a far better explanation than the first one you gave above.
What are you asking in your first question? Mentioned ingested what? What are you saying?
As to people getting it wrong, go back and read my post. I said that "the link you cite leaves a great deal to be desired" and . "believe me, it does not explain it very well".
I did not say that the writer "got it wrong"
I'll tell you what though, some of those links you've given provide a far better explanation than the first one you gave above.
theprof, I�ll begin by informing you that I do not need 'those that have been on AB for some time� to inform me of misleading or inadequate information that may be posted here. It happens on many, many sites - not just on AB.
Sometimes a link is posted to a site that I feel does not answer the question originally asked, this is my opinion and I am entitled to it. In the same way, the poster of the referral to a site is entitled to their opinion also.
I am in agreement that there are many sites on the Internet that are written by ill-informed individuals.
�unless one is a qualified scientist, there are times when it's difficult to sort out the wheat from the chaff�. I find this statement quite unnerving. Are you suggesting that if I were to post a question in the Science section of AB, I should not have any real confidence in any of the answers unless they come from a qualified Scientist?
Let us discuss sorting the �wheat from the chaff�. I shall assume from your statement that you are a qualified Scientist. Mostly, my qualifications are in Technology. I presume from your statement this means in the Science topics you are �wheat� and I am �chaff� and that in Technology topics I am �wheat� and you are �chaff�. Let us say a question was asked in Technology that interested you. You do a Google search and read the information on the first site you see and it explains the topic as you understand it to be. You then post that link. That is your opinion.
Sometimes a link is posted to a site that I feel does not answer the question originally asked, this is my opinion and I am entitled to it. In the same way, the poster of the referral to a site is entitled to their opinion also.
I am in agreement that there are many sites on the Internet that are written by ill-informed individuals.
�unless one is a qualified scientist, there are times when it's difficult to sort out the wheat from the chaff�. I find this statement quite unnerving. Are you suggesting that if I were to post a question in the Science section of AB, I should not have any real confidence in any of the answers unless they come from a qualified Scientist?
Let us discuss sorting the �wheat from the chaff�. I shall assume from your statement that you are a qualified Scientist. Mostly, my qualifications are in Technology. I presume from your statement this means in the Science topics you are �wheat� and I am �chaff� and that in Technology topics I am �wheat� and you are �chaff�. Let us say a question was asked in Technology that interested you. You do a Google search and read the information on the first site you see and it explains the topic as you understand it to be. You then post that link. That is your opinion.
Continued:
Unless the information given is incorrect, I feel it is unnecessary to comment on an answer given by another user in a negative way.
Maybe you could give your explanation as an addition rather than a correction.
I do not believe I took your behaviour the wrong way. I am not that sensitive. You say your sole intention was to suggest to the reader that the first link on a search engine is sometimes not the best link. I happen to agree unreservedly with that statement and if that was the point you wanted to make why not say exactly that?
�Fiesta44, I would suggest to you that the first link on a search engine is sometimes not the best link�.
Unless the information given is incorrect, I feel it is unnecessary to comment on an answer given by another user in a negative way.
Maybe you could give your explanation as an addition rather than a correction.
I do not believe I took your behaviour the wrong way. I am not that sensitive. You say your sole intention was to suggest to the reader that the first link on a search engine is sometimes not the best link. I happen to agree unreservedly with that statement and if that was the point you wanted to make why not say exactly that?
�Fiesta44, I would suggest to you that the first link on a search engine is sometimes not the best link�.
Thanks for replying TechGirl.
I�m pleased that you�re aware that there is much misleading and/or inadequate information on the internet and it does indeed happen on many sites. You may be surprised to learn that in general, such information has been rather sparse on AB, possibly due to the degree of camaraderie and friendship amongst posters.
Now you have been a member of AB for for only a short time � the fact that your name is in green says as much. Consequently, it�s possible that you might, just might have been unaware and unfamiliar with the considerable percentage of genuinely qualified and knowledgeable people that post on AB. Had you been unaware of this fact, then I�m sure you�ll agree that it would not have been out of character for you, or anyone else, to take much of the posts on AB with, let us say, a pinch of salt. That is human nature and cynicism is endemic in that nature.
I�m pleased that you�re aware that there is much misleading and/or inadequate information on the internet and it does indeed happen on many sites. You may be surprised to learn that in general, such information has been rather sparse on AB, possibly due to the degree of camaraderie and friendship amongst posters.
Now you have been a member of AB for for only a short time � the fact that your name is in green says as much. Consequently, it�s possible that you might, just might have been unaware and unfamiliar with the considerable percentage of genuinely qualified and knowledgeable people that post on AB. Had you been unaware of this fact, then I�m sure you�ll agree that it would not have been out of character for you, or anyone else, to take much of the posts on AB with, let us say, a pinch of salt. That is human nature and cynicism is endemic in that nature.
Now, I�m pleased that you do not feel it necessary for others on AB to remind you that misleading information may be posted here. However, you�re forgetting one thing: not everyone is you. The fact that you are qualified in Technology and have no doubt spent a considerable time on the internet has enabled you to be both cautious and sceptical about what you read where necessary and put you one step ahead of many people that post and read on AB. Nevertheless, the fact that you are aware of such occurrences does not mean that everyone else is. Furthermore, it should be apparent that the questions and they�re replies are read by far more people on AB than actually chose to post here and consequently, each thread has an audience that does not take part in the thread. Now like it or not, you may be aware of the drawbacks of this mode of conversation, but there are many others out there who are not. Consequently, I see no reason at all to withhold from readers of AB the wholesome nature of this site and when appropriate, I reiterate it. I suggest to you that up until your last post, you did not disclose that you have qualifications in Technology. How do you expect people on AB to be aware of your specialist knowledge in this field if you don�t disclose the informatiom? Without being disparaging, as far as the rest of us were concerned, your knowledge could have been confined to Windows Messenger or Bebo. Would that have been a reasonable assessment or not?
You like everyone else are perfectly free to post a link to any website you select. However, whereas the poster of the referral to a site may well be entitled to their opinion, without adequate knowledge of the subject it�s a bit hit and miss isn�t it? For example, if I posted a question requesting the name of a chemical compound with a certain formula, someone out there would type that formula into Google. Yes, the name of the compound would come up, but the problem is that Google might not show that there would be a number of unrelated compounds with the identical formula. Now I wonder who would dig deep enough to establish that fact let alone be aware that how misleading and inappropriate empirical formulii can be? In effect, this information could be easily overlooked and in essence, they probably provide a wrong answer. Yet you are telling me that that could be their opinion and that they are entitled to their opinion? Sorry, opinions are great, but science deals with facts and facts alone.
As I indicated above, yes, you could call me a qualified scientist. However, I think you need to return to my earlier post at this point and read again carefully my mention of �wheat� and �chaff�. You should note the second time that I was not referring to you personally; I was trying to politely distinguish between the truth (the wheat) and the dross (the chaff) that is endemic on the Internet. Despite the fact that I have sustained some abuse here on AB in the past, rest assured, I do not engage in it my myself. Because of this, I would not for a moment consider myself �wheat� and you �chaff� as far as science on AB was concerned. Believe me, despite that pedestal that universities, politicians, TV presenters, academics and publishers stick me on every day of the week, I�m perfectly well aware of my limitations. I take nothing for granted and I discuss topics in my own field with everyone from the road sweeper in my local to scientists at the very peak of the academic world. We don�t separate people into �wheat� and �chaff� for one very good reasons � we were once there ourselves.
Many people have an in built wariness of scientists, especially those that work in the academic field. Sometimes scientists can be formidable but I�ve always been the converse and have done my utmost not to discuss such things as Lys48-linked polyubiquitin chain recognition by the Mud1 UBA domain with the general public. What�s the point?
Many people have an in built wariness of scientists, especially those that work in the academic field. Sometimes scientists can be formidable but I�ve always been the converse and have done my utmost not to discuss such things as Lys48-linked polyubiquitin chain recognition by the Mud1 UBA domain with the general public. What�s the point?
Let me put it another way. I�m sitting here at home with a large cabinet next to me containing electronic equipment with around a hundred flashing LED�s. I�m told it�s a computer server and is linked to my university, another university campus down the road, a government agency and an Ivy-League university in the USA. I don�t profess (sorry for the pun) to know how the stuff in the cabinet works but and when it goes wrong, I get a uni technician out to fix it anytime of the day or night. For me, it just works and it�s necessary. You can probably tell me exactly how it works and I would respect your explanation because I know very little about it. We�re not all experts in everything TechGirl and really can�t afford to be disparaging to others.
Perhaps now you can see that I never regarded you as �chaff�, myself as wheat and vice versa where appropriate. As I said, to my mind that would border on the offensive, and I don�t engage in such puerility.
Your final point on your first post, is I regret to say, misplaced. Scientists do not Google a topic, review a webpage �as they understand it to be� and post the link. Scientists are only too well aware that their understanding of an unfamiliar topic may be flawed. It follows that the content of the webpage may be flawed because after all, if the scientist is not an expert in that field, how is he/she to know the difference? If the scientist is wrong, he/she leaves himself/herself open to criticism from colleagues and others. Not a wise thing to do, is it? So, sorry, but it doesn�t work that way.
Perhaps now you can see that I never regarded you as �chaff�, myself as wheat and vice versa where appropriate. As I said, to my mind that would border on the offensive, and I don�t engage in such puerility.
Your final point on your first post, is I regret to say, misplaced. Scientists do not Google a topic, review a webpage �as they understand it to be� and post the link. Scientists are only too well aware that their understanding of an unfamiliar topic may be flawed. It follows that the content of the webpage may be flawed because after all, if the scientist is not an expert in that field, how is he/she to know the difference? If the scientist is wrong, he/she leaves himself/herself open to criticism from colleagues and others. Not a wise thing to do, is it? So, sorry, but it doesn�t work that way.
The policy you adopt on answering questions is again admirable � many others do exactly the same.
I do concede that you are right that sometimes it would be better if I added a further comment to a reply rather than a correction. It might help keep the thread going.
Finally, you�re right again in that I could have been more direct in my reply. The problem that often arises with replying in the way that you have is that it often results in a stream of questions based on �Why?. In turn, the entire thread, soon goes off at a tangent and the original question becomes more difficult to answer for those that want to join in. Consider for a moment: Would you be happy if I replied in the manner you suggest to a question of yours?
Finally, If I can just repeat that I was not �having a go� at you personally.
I do concede that you are right that sometimes it would be better if I added a further comment to a reply rather than a correction. It might help keep the thread going.
Finally, you�re right again in that I could have been more direct in my reply. The problem that often arises with replying in the way that you have is that it often results in a stream of questions based on �Why?. In turn, the entire thread, soon goes off at a tangent and the original question becomes more difficult to answer for those that want to join in. Consider for a moment: Would you be happy if I replied in the manner you suggest to a question of yours?
Finally, If I can just repeat that I was not �having a go� at you personally.
Latest Posts
News4 mins ago
Crosswords21 mins ago
ChatterBank25 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles36 mins ago
