What would happen if the cell membrane were fully permeable to all substances in the cell's environment?

The cell membrane is selectively permeable, that is, it allows the entry to only a few molecules, while barring all the others. If the cell membrane was completely permeable, all the molecules will gain access to the cell interior. These molecules may include toxins and will be able to harm the cell or kill it. Thus, the semi-permeable or selectively permeable nature of cell membrane is necessary for cell survival and routine operation.

The transport...

The cell membrane is selectively permeable, that is, it allows the entry to only a few molecules, while barring all the others. If the cell membrane was completely permeable, all the molecules will gain access to the cell interior. These molecules may include toxins and will be able to harm the cell or kill it. Thus, the semi-permeable or selectively permeable nature of cell membrane is necessary for cell survival and routine operation.

The transport of molecules across the membrane is necessary, since the cell cannot produce all the molecules it needs for routine operation and also to dispose off (or excrete) the molecules that are not useful to the cell. Thus, selectivity in terms of transport of molecules (between the cell interior and exterior environment) is necessary.

Hope this helps. 

From Arthur Rowe's book The Essence of Jesus and his discussion of orthodoxy, what does orthodoxy mean for this period of Christianity? How (by...

According to Rowe, an orthodox set of Christian beliefs began to emerge in the 2nd century. At this time, the orthodox Christians focused on the four bibilical gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke and John that would later be included in the authorized Bible, as well as the letters of Paul that we still read today. These orthodox Christians were called the Great Church and distinguished themselves from small sects that followed leaders with different, and sometimes...

According to Rowe, an orthodox set of Christian beliefs began to emerge in the 2nd century. At this time, the orthodox Christians focused on the four bibilical gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke and John that would later be included in the authorized Bible, as well as the letters of Paul that we still read today. These orthodox Christians were called the Great Church and distinguished themselves from small sects that followed leaders with different, and sometimes odd, ideas about who Jesus was. But between the 2nd and 5th century many nagging questions about Jesus remained, even in Orthodox circles, and became sources of deep controversy. These included problems such as "could God suffer?" According to this line of thought, if Jesus was a God, how could he have suffered on the cross? Other questions regarded monotheism: how could two separate entities, God and Jesus, both be divine? How was it possible for Jesus to be both God and a human being? How did the different parts of the trinity, father, son, and holy spirit, relate to one another? Was the physical world evil and the spiritual world the only good? 

Emperor Constantine called the first council to hash out theological issues at Nicea in 325 and more would follow. A series of councils in different places continued after Christianity became the state religion in the Roman Empire in 380 CE, as emperors sought to receive definitive answers to divisive questions. The councils drew the best theological minds together from all over the empire and these men hammered out the issues. The result is the orthodox Christianity we have today. It includes such concepts as that God and Jesus share the same divine nature (Jesus is not a "creature" like humans), that Jesus did experience pain on the cross, the Jesus has two natures, one human and divine,  and that the material world is not evil but good,

Finally, Rowe discusses how pictures of Jesus had changed by the 5th century. While early paintings and wall mosaics showed Jesus among the people of the earth, later images increasingly depicted him topped by a halo and in heaven, fully established as divine. This reflects how the church's understanding of Jesus changed to focus more on his Godlike rather than his human qualities.

In Beowulf, how do the three monsters (Grendel, Grendel's Mother, the Dragon) vary in their symbolism? Are they all symbolic of the same things?

Here is a quick explanation of the symbolism behind each monster. For a quick answer, I would say there is great deal of connection between Grendel and his mother, as they are both part of the classic story of hero versus evil. The dragon almost tells a different story entirely, the story of a great man meeting his unavoidable end.

Grendel

According the the writer and theorist, John Gardner, who wrote an alternative version of...

Here is a quick explanation of the symbolism behind each monster. For a quick answer, I would say there is great deal of connection between Grendel and his mother, as they are both part of the classic story of hero versus evil. The dragon almost tells a different story entirely, the story of a great man meeting his unavoidable end.

Grendel

According the the writer and theorist, John Gardner, who wrote an alternative version of this story which focuses on Grendel, humans create monsters because of something dark and lurking we see in ourselves, something horrible yet seductive. Grendel is perhaps the perfect example of this idea. He is descended from Cain, one of the first humans in the Bible. Cain becomes the first murderer when he kills his own brother, Abel. This reinforces the notion that Grendel represents a darker side of our human nature. We see this by the explanation of his hatred for hearing sounds of joy in the hall. He is jealous of other's happiness, a common human weakness. He represents the same human greed, anger, and jealousy that we fear in ourselves.

Grendel's Mother

Joseph Campbell, an important scholar, explains that all heroes are essentially the same at the core. They all undergo the same structure of story; it is a tale that is part of our human nature. A crucial piece of this structure is what is often called "the belly of the whale." In this portion of the hero's journey, he or she goes to an extremely low point to face the greatest challenge. When the hero goes into the belly of the whale (sometimes the underworld, sometimes an actually whale's belly, sometimes death) he/she returns a true hero and his task is complete.

This story is somewhat unusual in that it continues after his success here, but after defeating Grendel's mother, it is unquestionable that he has now proven himself as the hero of the story. The battle with Grendel's mother represents the key moment where our hero goes to a dark place alone and emerges as the glorious victor. He wins glory, fame, and eventually even a kingdom. Grendel's mother represents the sinister challenge between victory and defeat.

The Dragon

It is a well understood symbol in both literature and religion that both serpents and dragons represent mortality and death. The perfect example of this comes in the garden of Eden, when it is the serpent that convinces Eve and Adam to eat the fruit and thereby end the immortality of humankind. By the time our hero encounters the Dragon he is an old man. Despite his amazing strength, he is still a mortal, and he still must face death. Even he cannot survive his encounter with the dragon. This shows that no amount of strength can help a person escape death. 

How can I come up with three arguments to support my thesis statement about Romeo and Juliet? My thesis statement is: In the novel Romeo and...

When analyzing a theme in literature, it's easier to look at the evidence of the theme you are thinking of using in order to come up with your arguments. From there, you can then combine your arguments in order to generate your thesis. This forces you to look at the evidence first. I notice that if students do it the other way around (thesis then arguments then evidence), they sometimes get attached to their thesis...

When analyzing a theme in literature, it's easier to look at the evidence of the theme you are thinking of using in order to come up with your arguments. From there, you can then combine your arguments in order to generate your thesis. This forces you to look at the evidence first. I notice that if students do it the other way around (thesis then arguments then evidence), they sometimes get attached to their thesis and try to make evidence fit that just doesn't.

Anyway, since you have your thesis already, let's break it down. It should read something along the lines of this: "In the play Romeo and Juliet, William Shakespeare demonstrates the immense damage a feud can cause through the rivalry between the Montagues and the Capulets."

The meat of your thesis statement is the idea of immense damage. This, I believe, is where you will find your arguments. Like I mentioned before, it's sometimes easier to look at evidence first. With that being said, here are some examples (there are many more) of immense damage that the feud caused from the play: 

• In Act I, Scene I, the feud causes turmoil in Verona, and the Prince, who is fed up with the fighting, makes his decree 


• In Act I, Scene 5, Tybalt recognizes Romeo at the party, and asks someone to fetch his sword; luckily, Capulet is able to cool him down


• In Act II, Scene 3, the Friar basically agrees to marry Romeo and Juliet in an attempt to end the feud (in a sense, the feud forces Romeo and Juliet to marry in secret in the first place) 


• In Act III, Scene I, Tybalt kills Mercutio, who is neither a relative of the Montagues nor the Capulets (following this, Romeo is exiled from Verona)


• In Act V, Scene III, Montague and Capulet join hands, ending the feud since both of their children have died 

Within the evidence, there is a pattern of death and deceit that snowball into even greater consequences. 

Considering the evidence, some arguments that can be made are: 

• The feud causes the death of innocent civilians (Mercutio, Paris)


• The feud causes senseless fighting that disturbs the peace (fighting in Act I, death of Mercutio, fighting between Tybalt and Romeo) 


• The feud causes people to be deceitful (Romeo and Juliet's relationship, the Friar keeping it a secret)


• The feud causes people to make rash decisions (Romeo and Juliet marrying, the Friar's intentions with their marriage)

What are three things that women do or use in The Great Gatsby to get ahead in a male-dominated society?

Something women do to get ahead in the male-dominated society of this novel (and the American 1920s) is cheat. Nick remembers a scandal surrounding Jordan Baker, the golfer, from years ago; there was a witness who claimed that she picked up her ball and moved it to a better position in order to succeed in a semi-finals round. This supposedly occurred at the first big tournament she participated in. It is just a game, and she was a young player then, so there surely would have been further opportunity for her to be successful without cheating, but it seems that she did it anyway and then coerced the witness to drop his accusation.

Further, Nick describes her as "incurably dishonest" because she could not "endure being at a disadvantage."  One would assume that being at a disadvantage due to her gender would be unpalatable to her, then.  He says that she instinctively avoids smart, astute men; thus, she began to deal in "subterfuges" at a very young age.  Therefore, yet another thing women to do get ahead is lie.  If Jordan only ever permits herself to be in the company of relatively unintelligent men, then they won't realize when she's lying and she gains the advantage over them.  Consider, also, Myrtle Wilson's dishonest infidelity to her husband, George, all for the sake of a rich lover who can give her the things and, she hopes, the status that she wants.

Finally, women play by "the rules," until they don't.  Daisy, after getting super drunk and freaking out a bit, does pull it together and marry Tom, and she does a good job of convincing people, including Jordan, of her devotion to him for a while.  Then, one day, she is reunited with a very patient Gatsby, and it does not take long for her to begin an affair with him.  She keeps her options open by refusing to give one up for the other -- waiting to see which man will offer her more and better.  When she learns how Gatsby has earned his money, it does not take long for Daisy to decide that she prefers wealth and status with Tom.  She manipulates them both to her own advantage: she gets to keep her status and position with Tom but sleeps with Gatsby.

When in The Outsiders do Ponyboy and Johnny cut their hair?

In Chapter 5 on page 72, of the SPEAK Penguin Group edition, Ponyboy and Johnny cut their hair. After Johnny returns from the store with various items, Ponyboy spots a bottle of Peroxide and asks Johnny if he's thinking about bleaching their hair. Johnny explains to Ponyboy that it is imperative that they cut their hair, and Ponyboy bleaches his, in order to disguise their identity. He tells Ponyboy that the authorities have their descriptions,...

In Chapter 5 on page 72, of the SPEAK Penguin Group edition, Ponyboy and Johnny cut their hair. After Johnny returns from the store with various items, Ponyboy spots a bottle of Peroxide and asks Johnny if he's thinking about bleaching their hair. Johnny explains to Ponyboy that it is imperative that they cut their hair, and Ponyboy bleaches his, in order to disguise their identity. He tells Ponyboy that the authorities have their descriptions, and if they want to remain unnoticed, they'll need to take this measure of precaution. Ponyboy laments about having to cut his hair. Ponyboy states that he has pride in his "tuff-looking" hair and says it is their greaser trademark. Johnny tells Ponyboy that they'll have to cut it anyway if they get caught, so they might as well go through with it. Johnny takes his razor and saws Ponyboy's long hair off, then bleaches it. Ponyboy is upset at his new haircut and believes his lighter, short hair makes him look like a pansy.

If one was to disagree with John Henry Newman's definition of the purpose of the university, what valid points could be argued?

One can disagree with Newman on many grounds. After all, Newman was writing in the nineteenth century after he had been appointed Rector of the new Roman Catholic university in Dublin. His book addresses issues specific to those circumstances, and especially to his desire to balance a general liberal education with the concept of a Roman Catholic university.

The first area where you could argue against his work would be to point out that it...

One can disagree with Newman on many grounds. After all, Newman was writing in the nineteenth century after he had been appointed Rector of the new Roman Catholic university in Dublin. His book addresses issues specific to those circumstances, and especially to his desire to balance a general liberal education with the concept of a Roman Catholic university.

The first area where you could argue against his work would be to point out that it is based on very limited assumptions. His university lacks diversity in class, religion, race, age, and gender, assuming that all students are relatively well off white males. He makes no provision for students who are working their way through university or non-traditional students combining work and school.

Next, there is the question of whether universities exist to build a certain sort of character or simply to provide students with a limited skill set. There are arguments on both sides, and those arguments need to be grounded in the diversity of the student body. A young woman from a poor farm family simply has different issues than the son of a wealthy urban family.

Finally, there is the question of what place religion and religious values have in a university. Newman at times waffles, trying to create a via media between doctrinal indoctrination and a universal liberal education. Here, though, he seems to avoid the notion that, on the one had, in some religious traditions, it is viewed as imperative to avoid all forms of secularism, while in some other cultural traditions, any religious elements in education are problematic.