Slashdot Mirror

Capsaicin
is an excellent topical analgesic also for neural problems, like Diabetic neuropathy.

There is a substance P which transmits the pain to the brain. Capsaicin destroys substance
P if you apply it for 4-5 days multiple times a day & hence for the next couple of weeks
you will not have pain, then you have to report it. Instead of the expensive Capsaicin
cream you can also use a paste made at home of red chilli powder etc. Or even McIlhenny's Tabasco

I have meralgia parasthetic condition & nothing provides relief like chilli paste.

The ribosome has already been done. FYI, this virus and the ribosome are in the same ballpark, size-wise.

Finally, I can say this for real: Imagine a Beowulf cluster (link is to Biowulf) of these!

The modeling software they used is called NAMD, free open source "parallel molecular dynamics code designed for high-performance simulation of large biomolecular systems" that will run on commodity clusters of tens of Linux PCs on gigabit ethernet. In other words, you too can run the virus simulation on your own Beowulf cluster, if you don't mind it taking some years to run. According to NCSA's own press release about the virus simulation, it "only" took 35 processor-years, so if you have a 100 fast Linux PCs on a gigabit network lying around you can do it yourself in not much more than 4 months.

This is, to put it bluntly, wrong (search for personality or behavior). For that matter, most people doesn't consider early childhood trauma to be "cultural". If someone were intending to show a genetic component to personality, he or she would first have to show a physiological component to personality. That has yet to happen. So your analogy of shortness and strongness, which are physiological traits, can not be applied to personalities, which are not physiological. The brain may be genetic, but we are many, many years from proving or even suggesting that personality traits are.

This too is wrong, and sounds a lot like some sort of vitalistic voodoo; in other words, much less scientific than the notion that genes influence personality. It is also inconsistent with what you said above (where you used the causal chain [early childhood trauma] --> [physical damage to the brain] --> [personality]).

--MarkusQ

P.S. "Strongness" isn't a word. I think you were looking for "Strength."

As I said in the GP, defining race is a terribly complex subject (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race), and since it's really a fuzzy classification problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_set) we'll never have an answer that satisfies everyone. However, as I said, if simply using self-reported race is good enough to show such statistically meaningful differences that have such large impacts on science and medicine, then it is good enough for our purposes, and we can discard all of the competing and confusing notions for "race".

>>If race is such a useful bit of knowledge for medicine, certainly doctors would have a lot of data on race (and race alone, not ancestry and disease)

They do have a lot of data. And it's a hot field right now. The field, in terms of the different impacts of drugs on race and other factors (to continue with the example I gave) is called pharmacogenetics.

PubMed lets you read the abstracts, so clicking here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Search&db=pubmed&term=pharmacogenetics&tool=fuzzy& ot=pharmogenetics

Will give you 3567 articles on pharmacogenetics.

Just picking one at random:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1651658 7&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum

Whites were shown to get more of a response from statins (or anti-cholesterol drugs) than African Americans. Older people were shown to have a greater response than younger. Women more than men. Non-smokers more than smokers. People with high blood pressure more than those with low. Slimmer people had a better response than fat people.

And yes, I'm using race and ancestry as being loosely equivalent to each other. Again, I'm trying to disregard these classically confounding problems because you can get tied up so much in trying to precisely define that which cannot be precisely defined (as I said, it's a fuzzy classification problem), that you will miss out on the practical benefits of it because you're too worried about being politically correct.

As I said in the GP, defining race is a terribly complex subject (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race), and since it's really a fuzzy classification problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_set) we'll never have an answer that satisfies everyone. However, as I said, if simply using self-reported race is good enough to show such statistically meaningful differences that have such large impacts on science and medicine, then it is good enough for our purposes, and we can discard all of the competing and confusing notions for "race".

>>If race is such a useful bit of knowledge for medicine, certainly doctors would have a lot of data on race (and race alone, not ancestry and disease)

They do have a lot of data. And it's a hot field right now. The field, in terms of the different impacts of drugs on race and other factors (to continue with the example I gave) is called pharmacogenetics.

PubMed lets you read the abstracts, so clicking here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Search&db=pubmed&term=pharmacogenetics&tool=fuzzy& ot=pharmogenetics

Will give you 3567 articles on pharmacogenetics.

Just picking one at random:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1651658 7&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum

Whites were shown to get more of a response from statins (or anti-cholesterol drugs) than African Americans. Older people were shown to have a greater response than younger. Women more than men. Non-smokers more than smokers. People with high blood pressure more than those with low. Slimmer people had a better response than fat people.

And yes, I'm using race and ancestry as being loosely equivalent to each other. Again, I'm trying to disregard these classically confounding problems because you can get tied up so much in trying to precisely define that which cannot be precisely defined (as I said, it's a fuzzy classification problem), that you will miss out on the practical benefits of it because you're too worried about being politically correct.

As I said, it was from notes at a lecture.

However, with a trivial amount of research I found 411 references on the subject:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Display&dopt=pubmed_pubmed&from_uid=7013 538

Go ahead and read the abstracts for them if you don't believe me.

Agarwal DP is the man. He started the field back in 1981 studying the different levels of mutated alcohol dehydrogenase and acetaldehyde dehydrogenase levels by racial groups.

Embryonic stem cells are stems cells that are going to waste anyways. Left over from in vitro fertilization.
They are from the from the blastocyst stage,and about 128 cells.

also:
http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/scireport/chapter2.a sp

The hair, while surprising, is not if you consider that it could just be a sensory organ. Note how evolution deprecated the critter's eyes since the hairs would probably be more effective in the 7500 foot depth where it lives. Once in a while it is nice to see that there are still things to be discovered.

Or search Wikipedia, google, etc.

1. "Most of the DNA in the cell is wrapped in a fat and protein membrane."

Most of the DNA in "all" three kingdoms are wrapped up in proteins. In eukaryotes there is a membrane that surrounds the entire set of chromosomes (except during cell division) called the nuclear membrane. Chloroplasts and mitochondria are also surrounded by membranes. All membranes have proteins in them. In Prokaryotes, the entire cell is surrounded by at least one membrane, and the DNA is inside of this in the cytoplasm. It does not float freely. In prokaryotes, most chromosomes are circular (but not always) and most organisms have one chromosomes (but not always). In eukaryotes, most organisms have multiple linear chromosomes.

NB: Membranes are comprised of lipids and proteins and in some cases other molecules like cholesterol. Lipids are also known as "fat" and there are many different types.

2. Central dogma/transcription/translation.

In prokaryotes, transcription (copying DNA to mRNA) and translation (translating the RNA to create polypeptide (protein) chains, done by the ribosome) are coupled. In eukaryotes it is uncoupled as the RNA has to be transported out of the nucleus through the nuclear pore, where the mRNA is then translated by ribosomes in the cytoplasm, or by ribosomes attached to the ER and exported.

3. Prokaryote/Eukaryote introns

Introns are not eukaryotic-specific. All three branches of life have introns, however, they are far rarer in the archaea and bacteria (especially rare). Some introns can self-splice (remove themselves), while others do not. Lots of different "types" of DNA can move themselves around, insertion sequences, transposons, phages, viruses, conjugative DNA, etc. This movement of DNA is a driving force in evolution itself, not merely in a host organism protecting itself from invasive DNA, but in the evolution of novel protein functions.

4. Single/multicellular

There are single-celled eukaryotes (yeast cells) and there are prokaryotes that form developmentally specialized conglomerations of cells (biofilms, cyanobacterial chains, mycelial hyphae) where some cells are specialized as compared to others. Many prokaryotes can signal to, as well as receive signals from, other cells.

5. Mimivrius

Mimivirus is interesting, but it is an extreme outlier. More work on the full range of virus forms and genome ranges will help in this arena. Some of the metagenomic projects will definitely help in this area. It's like attempting to hypothesize the evolution of mulicellular organisms based on the blue whale.

6. Introns and domains.

Proteins fold into 3D structures to perform functions. The basic unit is a domain, which are units that can fold into a 3D structure themselves and perform some function (basically). Exons and domains are not a 1 to 1 relationship. IMO, intron evolution has a lot more to do with alternative splicing events and regulation in developmental pathways than it does in driving new functions for genes (you can duplicate genes and domains without introns/exons).

7. Membrane evolution.

Membrane compartmentalization is a key step in evolution. Interestingly the prokaryotes (archaea and bacteria) have two different types of lipids, suggesting that in the early stages of this evolutionary step that two pathways were chosen, and both have been maintained since that time. Again, another point in evolution is not that one system is always better than another, but that endpoints are achieved through multiple pathways.

8. Koonin et al., hypothesis.

Their hypothesis is interesting. I haven't read the paper, but I have seen Koonin's seminar from a few months ago. Unfortunately there is so much we don't know yet. His ideas may be skewed towards analyses based simply on comparative genomics and not enough on biochemistry.

Kundi M, Mild K, Hardell L, Mattson M-O (2004): Mobile telephones and cancer - a review of epidemiological evidence.
Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health Part B 7:351-384, 2004

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1601992 8&query_hl=3&itool=pubmed_docsum

Link to the summary on NCBI. It is based on hundreds of studies, and seems to conclude that there is little or no evidence.

"The epidemiological evidence for a causal association between cancer and RF energy is weak and limited"

the only caution is "the existing epidemiology is limited and the possibility of epigenetic effects has not been thoroughly evaluated, so that additional research in those areas will be required for a more thorough assessment of the possibility of a causal connection between cancer and the RF energy from mobile telecommunications"

Im not too concerned about epigenetic. Maybe if my ears were located below my belt.

Even if cell phones induced tumors, we can't detect it with any current experiments. Maybe when more sensitive tools for detecting mutagenesis are developed, we will be better able to quantitate the effects. Until there is something concrete, I will keep on using my cell phone.

"...to the best of my knowledge, studies into the effects of violent games have been inconclusive..."

From http://www.apa.org/science/psa/sb-anderson.html:

"Myth 1. Violent video game research has yielded very mixed results.
Facts: Some studies have yielded nonsignificant video game effects, just as some smoking studies failed to find a significant link to lung cancer. But when one combines all relevant empirical studies using meta-analytic techniques, five separate effects emerge with considerable consistency. Violent video games are significantly associated with: increased aggressive behavior, thoughts, and affect; increased physiological arousal; and decreased prosocial (helping) behavior. Average effect sizes for experimental studies (which help establish causality) and correlational studies (which allow examination of serious violent behavior) appear comparable (Anderson & Bushman, 2001)."

One of his cited sources:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11554666&dopt=Abstrac t
(if you have some way to access the article... I believe the only reason I can through this site is because of a university-level subscription service or something like that, the site it links to seems to imply that it's possible to not have full access to the article)

Doctors will not prescribe an antibiotic without first verifying that there is some type of bacterial infection. While your coworker may have tried to get antibiotics from his/her doctor, they would have failed unless they actually demonstrated symptoms consistent with a bacterial infection.

You do realize that the common cold is a VIRAL infection, and anti-biotics kill BACTERIA, and will therefore be totally useless except to contribute to the anti-biotic tolerance of bacteria?"

What you seem to be neglecting is that many, many people have a condition called sinusitis that is frequently associated with colds. Many cases of acute sinusitis are accompanied by bacterial infections of the sinus cavities, which can be quite severe. If left untreated, sinus infections can lead to bronchitis and pneumonia. It is perfectly reasonable to treat such infections with antibiotics before they reach the lungs and require more significant treatment.

You can read more about sinusitis from the National Institute of Health.

This is rather puzzling. A quantum mechanism has been proposed. I should point out the the author's (McFadden) book is where I learned of these surprising mutations.

Actually this could backfire. Having multiple choices that are difficult to choose among drives people to alternatives. People are systematically irrational in this way. If somebody prefers A over B, then they should continue to prefer A over B even if choice C suddenly becomes available, right? Wrong. Often they will go to *B* is it's too hard to choose between A and C, and all three choices are close in value. A famous study illustrating this had people choose their compensation for participating in a quick study. They could choose between this fancy pen (told it was worth around, say, $5) and like $3 cash. People almost invariably took the pen. However, when other people were given their choice between two different but comparable pens, each worth around $5, and $3 cash, they just took the cash. They didn't have a good reason to pick one pen over the other (says one theory), or the cost of debating the choice was higher than their preference over the third alternative (says another theory), so they go for the neutral, third alternative. There have been many, many similar experimental examples.

So, if people are stressed or stymied by having to choose among even two copies of Windows, much less six, and they have been at all flirting with an alternative option (i.e., another OS, or just don't bother upgrading at all), this could easily put them over the edge.

(This comes for the reason-based choice work of Eldar Shafir and others)

From the pdf file the_immune_system:

Immunology and Transplants

Each year thousands of American lives are prolonged by transplanted organs -- kidney,heart,lung,liver,and pancreas.For a transplant to "take," however,,the body 's natural tendency to rid itself of foreign tissue must be overridden. One way,tissue typing ,makes sure markers of self on the donor 's tissue are as similar as possible to those of the recipient.Each cell has a double set of 6 major tissue antigens,and each of the antigens exists, in different individuals,in as many as 20 varieties.The chance of 2 people having identical transplant antigens is about 1 in 100,000.

Transplant patients must first overcome these odds. If it were me I think my tendency would be to breathe a sigh of relief at having found donor tissue and that relief might make me tend to put questions about tissue health on the back burner.

This article may shed a little more light on the subject. I suspect it has more to do with TIA's monitoring of commerce.

Planck's constant = 6.626068 × 10-34 m2 kg/S. It's that 10**-34 that makes it difficult for low-energy electromagetism like wireless transmissions to interact with chemical reactions

Not sure I understand the relevancy of Plank's constant (although I'll admit I barely passed my EM Theory class). Are you saying that because an individual photon has a very small amount of energy that photons cannot interact with chemical reactions? What about gamma radiation, which has long been understood to be bad for living things (bad when exposed indiscriminantly, yes there are medical uses for it as well)?
There is evidence that microwaves can cleave DNA, from which you might infer in could be mutagenic, hence carcinogenic: non-thermal DNA breakage by mobile-phone radiation. Search pubmed for microwaves and you'll find lots of interesting results.

That said, I use wifi daily.

Congratulations to that guy for taking a very courageous stand against exposing more people to more 'wireless' radiation. Everyone's daily exposure to this just keeps climbing with 'WiFi' access points, cell phone sites, ubiquitous cell phone use, etc. Yes, these technologies provide wonderful convenience. Yes, they seem harmless since they have no visible effects on us after we use them. But no, they are probably not harmless, although it will likely be several more decades before the magnitude of the harm they are causing is apparent to us.

The Canadian university guy will probably be quickly pressured to recant his ban but it's great that he took the stand he did because it at least puts some light on the issue that might help to get independent studies of health effects funded in the future.

Not that slashdotters need to worry about this, but there should be a fairly large demand for this type of accessory. Especially since this nice scary study came out:

http://news.com.com/Study+Laptop+heat+a+threat+to+ fertility/2100-1044_3-5485763.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1559108 7&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum
http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/ 20/2/452

The study showed laptop use can significantly increase scrotal temperature. Previous studies have shown regular increased temperature can reduce sperm count for weeks or months.

I'm switching back to a desktop.

--David

Ummm... if we're headed for another ice age then how do sea levels rise? Isn't all that excess water tied up in, well, snow and ice? As in ice age? ;)

I think he's talking about the potential of much colder winters in Europe (and only Europe) thanks to the gulf stream slowing down/completely stopping (see, for example this paper for recent evidence of changes to the gulf stream flow)

I am not sure why simply because it is about one of many available tools, the post is out of place on Slashdot. I am not a member of a huge biochem or medical lab, but I am trying to learn and use biochemistry, so I can use every bit of help.

It's out of place because the announcement is somewhat akin to posting a front page article when some guy releases version 0.1 of a new text editor onto Sourceforge. It's been done a million times before, and it doesn't cover any new ground. It isn't even interesting to people who don't use text editors.

That said, if you're really trying to get a handle on biochem and molecular biology (and the bioinformatics that goes along with it), almost all up to date textbooks on the subject include a section (or more) on bioinformatics. In 2006, knowing how to perform basic analysis on your DNA or protein sequence is just about as important as understanding the concept of a gene, or how the complementary nature of DNA works. If the textbooks you currently have are a little out of date, take a look around the library and grab something more recent. There are also plenty of bioinformatics and sequence analysis textbooks on the shelves now.

If you're looking for some places to get started, (and I think someone has already mentioned these), try ExPASy . Although it's more protein oriented, it has an extensive list of links to a very broad cross-section of bioinformatics and sequence analysis tools (along with some tutorials). Also take a look at NCBI, which not only has a range of important tools (like BLAST), but also PubMed. In a similar vein, also explore the EBI site which has another extensive set of tools and databases.

Since you ask, some of the stuff that I commonly use for bog-standard molecular biology tasks (in addition to the links above) includes PlasMapper (finds restriction sites and generates tasteful plasmid maps) and the New England Biolabs site which has some similar tools (NEBcutter, for example), but also handy information on all the restriction enzymes themselves.

If you're into writing bioinformatics applications yourself, start by looking at something like BioPerl. Just using Perl as an example (since it's very popular in biology), there are pre-existing libraries, all fully open sourced and Free(tm), which do things like reverse translation and interfacing with analysis tools like BLAST already.

That's just the tip of the iceberg. Anyone getting started in molecular biology will discover these kinds of sites very quickly. They're mentioned in the textbooks, they're easily found with Google, and they'll be revealed after a 2 minute conversation with anyone working in the field. That's what make this story so pointless. There's nothing new here. It's all been done before, and done 500 times before at that. Even outsiders from other sciences will discover this kind of stuff within a day or two if they're actually serious.

You may be impaired and not even know it. Judging the use of your language I'd say that your reasoning skills have been adversely affected as well.

This study proves an IQ drop of 5 or more points per week.

Another study "found that marijuana users have lower levels of carotenoids in the
serum. The authors concluded this was associated with different
dietary habits: "We found higher cigarette-smoking rates and higher
consumption of sodas and alcohol, specifically beer, among marijuana
users than among non-current marijuana users."

Another study concluded that "Regular
marijuana use can lead to extensive airway injury and alterations in
the structure and function of alveolar macrophages, potentially
predisposing to pulmonary infection and respiratory cancer."

I'm sorry you and your buddies have exposed yourself to something so dangerous for so long. I hope one day you will be able to function normal lives.

You may be impaired and not even know it. Judging the use of your language I'd say that your reasoning skills have been adversely affected as well.

This study proves an IQ drop of 5 or more points per week.

Another study "found that marijuana users have lower levels of carotenoids in the
serum. The authors concluded this was associated with different
dietary habits: "We found higher cigarette-smoking rates and higher
consumption of sodas and alcohol, specifically beer, among marijuana
users than among non-current marijuana users."

Another study concluded that "Regular
marijuana use can lead to extensive airway injury and alterations in
the structure and function of alveolar macrophages, potentially
predisposing to pulmonary infection and respiratory cancer."

I'm sorry you and your buddies have exposed yourself to something so dangerous for so long. I hope one day you will be able to function normal lives.

You may be impaired and not even know it. Judging the use of your language I'd say that your reasoning skills have been adversely affected as well.

This study proves an IQ drop of 5 or more points per week.

Another study "found that marijuana users have lower levels of carotenoids in the
serum. The authors concluded this was associated with different
dietary habits: "We found higher cigarette-smoking rates and higher
consumption of sodas and alcohol, specifically beer, among marijuana
users than among non-current marijuana users."

Another study concluded that "Regular
marijuana use can lead to extensive airway injury and alterations in
the structure and function of alveolar macrophages, potentially
predisposing to pulmonary infection and respiratory cancer."

I'm sorry you and your buddies have exposed yourself to something so dangerous for so long. I hope one day you will be able to function normal lives.

Well, the grass itself likely may not metabolize the contents of the cow dung, but there's an awful lot of other things that will. For example, the nitrogen-fixing bacteria that lives in the roots of the grass.

I think the point that I'm making is that the carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen bound up in the dung isn't simply wasted, but rather returned into the soil's ecosystem rather quickly.

Man, I never imagined how much I'd be talking about cow dung this afternoon.

The findings are bogus: they cite a 0.3% difference between more highly educated Alzheimer's patients and their counterparts. The counterargument is that plenty of people who wound normally go to grad school insead choose to work in industry. This small lifestyle difference for four years in a subject's late twenties should not effect tests given at age 65+. More likely is that some other factor is introduced by lifestyle differences between the two major career paths.

Well, it is already established that more educated people have a lower risk of Alzheimer's, and a later onset. This study, however, follows a few hundred already diagnosed patients for five years, and notes that the rate of cognitive decline is faster in the more educated patients. Probably they just didn't have enough coffee Be a little more interesting when the study itself is available instead of the press release.

The findings are bogus: they cite a 0.3% difference between more highly educated Alzheimer's patients and their counterparts. The counterargument is that plenty of people who wound normally go to grad school insead choose to work in industry. This small lifestyle difference for four years in a subject's late twenties should not effect tests given at age 65+. More likely is that some other factor is introduced by lifestyle differences between the two major career paths.

Well, it is already established that more educated people have a lower risk of Alzheimer's, and a later onset. This study, however, follows a few hundred already diagnosed patients for five years, and notes that the rate of cognitive decline is faster in the more educated patients. Probably they just didn't have enough coffee Be a little more interesting when the study itself is available instead of the press release.

The findings are bogus: they cite a 0.3% difference between more highly educated Alzheimer's patients and their counterparts. The counterargument is that plenty of people who wound normally go to grad school insead choose to work in industry. This small lifestyle difference for four years in a subject's late twenties should not effect tests given at age 65+. More likely is that some other factor is introduced by lifestyle differences between the two major career paths.

Well, it is already established that more educated people have a lower risk of Alzheimer's, and a later onset. This study, however, follows a few hundred already diagnosed patients for five years, and notes that the rate of cognitive decline is faster in the more educated patients. Probably they just didn't have enough coffee Be a little more interesting when the study itself is available instead of the press release.

ID is right: evolution can't produce a new species. Evolution merely creates teeming biodiversity. It takes man to divide it up into species.

They're wrong to suggest speciation requires God's involvement, of course. Species can be created and destroyed without God, they are all the time.

Research does not have to be profit motivated. A lot of research comes from universities which in turn receive funding from the government. I believe this model is better suited to pharmacuetical research than corporations trying to maximize profits.

The government will always refuse to support vital and important research for various political reasons. It also has limited amounts of money to provide, and what the government determines should be a priority may not be what you think it should be; they may determine that a new weapon is more important than a certain virus pandemic. For these reasons, societies that limit their research dollars to the government's whimsy fall behind technologically, or even destroy their own advances in a government-sponsored fit of nationalism.

I won't go as far as T. Boone Pickens' assertion to the Amarillo Rotary Club that "Greed Is Good," but to deny researchers even the option of reward for their endeavors historically leads to slow progress or even a reverse.

Research does not have to be profit motivated. A lot of research comes from universities which in turn receive funding from the government. I believe this model is better suited to pharmacuetical research than corporations trying to maximize profits.

The government will always refuse to support vital and important research for various political reasons. It also has limited amounts of money to provide, and what the government determines should be a priority may not be what you think it should be; they may determine that a new weapon is more important than a certain virus pandemic. For these reasons, societies that limit their research dollars to the government's whimsy fall behind technologically, or even destroy their own advances in a government-sponsored fit of nationalism.

I won't go as far as T. Boone Pickens' assertion to the Amarillo Rotary Club that "Greed Is Good," but to deny researchers even the option of reward for their endeavors historically leads to slow progress or even a reverse.

Fuck yahoo. Here is a link trail back through time:

yyyy.mm.dd url

2006.xx.xx Who knows where this will be gay-linked next
2006.02.12 http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/1 2/0738233
2006.02.11 http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20060211/sc_space/mi ndcontrolbyparasites
2006.01.17 http://loom.corante.com/archives/2006/01/17/the_re turn_of_the_puppet_masters.php
2003.11.?? http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol9no11/03-0143.htm
1997.11.?? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9487962&dopt=Abstract
1896.??.?? Is insanity due to a microbe? [editorial] Sci Am 1896
1066.10.14 Reported scuffle broke out due to some tosspot road builders being toxoplamarised. //ghey

I wouldn't be so rabidly macho skeptical regarding negative effects of toxoplasma and cats. The toxoplasma gondii parasite is not a one-off infection event relevant only to pregnant women catching it. Once infected, you are infected for the rest of your life because our bodies are unable to get rid of the parasite, remaining in a state of latent toxoplasmosis. There is published, peer-reviewed evidence that people with latent toxoplasmosis have up to 5% slower reaction times and are more likely to suffer traffic accidents.

A study in 2002 noted that people were more prone to play in the middle of the road if infected with Toxoplasma gondii, http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcg i?artid=117239

Birth of a unique enzyme from an alternative reading frame of the preexisted, internally repetitious coding sequence says that the gene was generated by Flavobacterium.

Emergence of Nylon Oligomer Degradation Enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through Experimental Evolution says that the gene was generated by Pseudomonas.

"What do you think antibiotic resistance is?"

A genetic adaptive response.

"They're variant amino acid sequences for antibiotic targets that produce slightly different proteins."

Contingency loci. This is not random change.

"Or community plasmids or viral sequences that don't have any advantage normally, but the bacterial community keeps around because those that don't are periodically wiped out."

Another adaptive response.

"But if you think about it as a random genetic mutation in the structure of a blood protein that, in its heterozygous state, confers great resistance to a lethal disease"

I do think about it that way. Note that your only example thus far of an actual random mutation has been degenerative. And yes, people who die from this don't reproduce much afterwards.

"How about cystic fibrosis? If "sick things don't reproduce well", cystic fibrosis should have been history long before modern medicine got around to diagnosing it."

????

So you are saying that natural selection doesn't work?

"Try looking up "ribosomal RNA sequencing" sometime, since you say you're big on scientific papers."

rRNA sequencing conflicts with the morphological data in many cases.

"How could life arise from non-life? The Wiki entry on "origin of life" has a good summary of the theories on how that could happen. As well as the experimental proof behind them."

Yes, there's many theories. But the "proof"s simply aren't there. Try checking out:

Chance and Necessity Do Not Explain the Origin of Life

Origin of life on earth and Shannon's theory of communication.

You also have the problem that before DNA-editting enzymes, the error rate would be too high to support life, but the enzymes are encoded by DNA.

Also there's the little problem that, before enzymes, the reaction rate would be way too slow to do anything of interest before being totally destroyed.

You also seem to be misunderstanding the idea of Intelligent Design (and even creationism). First of all, ID is compatible with (but does not require) common descent. Neither creationism nor intelligent design require a designer to be continually tinkering throughout natural history. The point is that the processes in the cell are ultimately _telic_ processes. They are informational processes, guided by the information that was originally coded. The Darwinian idea is that information can generate itself. Demski has handily refuted such idea using basic math (any search space involving more than 500 bits to achieve the next fitness level is basically impossible).

The quintessential ID hypothesis is probably Davison's Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis (previously called the Semi-Meiotic Theory) which says that phylogeny follows a semi-directed path just like ontogeny does.

The quintessential Creationary hypothesis is probably Todd Wood's Altruistic Genetic Element hypothesis.

Also, if you're interested, two good examinations of neo-Darwinism are:

A Biochemical Mechanism for Nonrandom Mutations and Evolution

and

"What do you think antibiotic resistance is?"

A genetic adaptive response.

"They're variant amino acid sequences for antibiotic targets that produce slightly different proteins."

Contingency loci. This is not random change.

"Or community plasmids or viral sequences that don't have any advantage normally, but the bacterial community keeps around because those that don't are periodically wiped out."

Another adaptive response.

"But if you think about it as a random genetic mutation in the structure of a blood protein that, in its heterozygous state, confers great resistance to a lethal disease"

I do think about it that way. Note that your only example thus far of an actual random mutation has been degenerative. And yes, people who die from this don't reproduce much afterwards.

"How about cystic fibrosis? If "sick things don't reproduce well", cystic fibrosis should have been history long before modern medicine got around to diagnosing it."

????

So you are saying that natural selection doesn't work?

"Try looking up "ribosomal RNA sequencing" sometime, since you say you're big on scientific papers."

rRNA sequencing conflicts with the morphological data in many cases.

"How could life arise from non-life? The Wiki entry on "origin of life" has a good summary of the theories on how that could happen. As well as the experimental proof behind them."

Yes, there's many theories. But the "proof"s simply aren't there. Try checking out:

Chance and Necessity Do Not Explain the Origin of Life

Origin of life on earth and Shannon's theory of communication.

You also have the problem that before DNA-editting enzymes, the error rate would be too high to support life, but the enzymes are encoded by DNA.

Also there's the little problem that, before enzymes, the reaction rate would be way too slow to do anything of interest before being totally destroyed.

You also seem to be misunderstanding the idea of Intelligent Design (and even creationism). First of all, ID is compatible with (but does not require) common descent. Neither creationism nor intelligent design require a designer to be continually tinkering throughout natural history. The point is that the processes in the cell are ultimately _telic_ processes. They are informational processes, guided by the information that was originally coded. The Darwinian idea is that information can generate itself. Demski has handily refuted such idea using basic math (any search space involving more than 500 bits to achieve the next fitness level is basically impossible).

The quintessential ID hypothesis is probably Davison's Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis (previously called the Semi-Meiotic Theory) which says that phylogeny follows a semi-directed path just like ontogeny does.

The quintessential Creationary hypothesis is probably Todd Wood's Altruistic Genetic Element hypothesis.

Also, if you're interested, two good examinations of neo-Darwinism are:

A Biochemical Mechanism for Nonrandom Mutations and Evolution

and

"What do you think antibiotic resistance is?"

A genetic adaptive response.

"They're variant amino acid sequences for antibiotic targets that produce slightly different proteins."

Contingency loci. This is not random change.

"Or community plasmids or viral sequences that don't have any advantage normally, but the bacterial community keeps around because those that don't are periodically wiped out."

Another adaptive response.

"But if you think about it as a random genetic mutation in the structure of a blood protein that, in its heterozygous state, confers great resistance to a lethal disease"

I do think about it that way. Note that your only example thus far of an actual random mutation has been degenerative. And yes, people who die from this don't reproduce much afterwards.

"How about cystic fibrosis? If "sick things don't reproduce well", cystic fibrosis should have been history long before modern medicine got around to diagnosing it."

????

So you are saying that natural selection doesn't work?

"Try looking up "ribosomal RNA sequencing" sometime, since you say you're big on scientific papers."

rRNA sequencing conflicts with the morphological data in many cases.

"How could life arise from non-life? The Wiki entry on "origin of life" has a good summary of the theories on how that could happen. As well as the experimental proof behind them."

Yes, there's many theories. But the "proof"s simply aren't there. Try checking out:

Chance and Necessity Do Not Explain the Origin of Life

Origin of life on earth and Shannon's theory of communication.

You also have the problem that before DNA-editting enzymes, the error rate would be too high to support life, but the enzymes are encoded by DNA.

Also there's the little problem that, before enzymes, the reaction rate would be way too slow to do anything of interest before being totally destroyed.

You also seem to be misunderstanding the idea of Intelligent Design (and even creationism). First of all, ID is compatible with (but does not require) common descent. Neither creationism nor intelligent design require a designer to be continually tinkering throughout natural history. The point is that the processes in the cell are ultimately _telic_ processes. They are informational processes, guided by the information that was originally coded. The Darwinian idea is that information can generate itself. Demski has handily refuted such idea using basic math (any search space involving more than 500 bits to achieve the next fitness level is basically impossible).

The quintessential ID hypothesis is probably Davison's Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis (previously called the Semi-Meiotic Theory) which says that phylogeny follows a semi-directed path just like ontogeny does.

The quintessential Creationary hypothesis is probably Todd Wood's Altruistic Genetic Element hypothesis.

Also, if you're interested, two good examinations of neo-Darwinism are:

A Biochemical Mechanism for Nonrandom Mutations and Evolution

and

"What do you think antibiotic resistance is?"

A genetic adaptive response.

"They're variant amino acid sequences for antibiotic targets that produce slightly different proteins."

Contingency loci. This is not random change.

"Or community plasmids or viral sequences that don't have any advantage normally, but the bacterial community keeps around because those that don't are periodically wiped out."

Another adaptive response.

"But if you think about it as a random genetic mutation in the structure of a blood protein that, in its heterozygous state, confers great resistance to a lethal disease"

I do think about it that way. Note that your only example thus far of an actual random mutation has been degenerative. And yes, people who die from this don't reproduce much afterwards.

"How about cystic fibrosis? If "sick things don't reproduce well", cystic fibrosis should have been history long before modern medicine got around to diagnosing it."

????

So you are saying that natural selection doesn't work?

"Try looking up "ribosomal RNA sequencing" sometime, since you say you're big on scientific papers."

rRNA sequencing conflicts with the morphological data in many cases.

"How could life arise from non-life? The Wiki entry on "origin of life" has a good summary of the theories on how that could happen. As well as the experimental proof behind them."

Yes, there's many theories. But the "proof"s simply aren't there. Try checking out:

Chance and Necessity Do Not Explain the Origin of Life

Origin of life on earth and Shannon's theory of communication.

You also have the problem that before DNA-editting enzymes, the error rate would be too high to support life, but the enzymes are encoded by DNA.

Also there's the little problem that, before enzymes, the reaction rate would be way too slow to do anything of interest before being totally destroyed.

You also seem to be misunderstanding the idea of Intelligent Design (and even creationism). First of all, ID is compatible with (but does not require) common descent. Neither creationism nor intelligent design require a designer to be continually tinkering throughout natural history. The point is that the processes in the cell are ultimately _telic_ processes. They are informational processes, guided by the information that was originally coded. The Darwinian idea is that information can generate itself. Demski has handily refuted such idea using basic math (any search space involving more than 500 bits to achieve the next fitness level is basically impossible).

The quintessential ID hypothesis is probably Davison's Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis (previously called the Semi-Meiotic Theory) which says that phylogeny follows a semi-directed path just like ontogeny does.

The quintessential Creationary hypothesis is probably Todd Wood's Altruistic Genetic Element hypothesis.

Also, if you're interested, two good examinations of neo-Darwinism are:

A Biochemical Mechanism for Nonrandom Mutations and Evolution

and

"What do you think antibiotic resistance is?"

A genetic adaptive response.

"They're variant amino acid sequences for antibiotic targets that produce slightly different proteins."

Contingency loci. This is not random change.

"Or community plasmids or viral sequences that don't have any advantage normally, but the bacterial community keeps around because those that don't are periodically wiped out."

Another adaptive response.

"But if you think about it as a random genetic mutation in the structure of a blood protein that, in its heterozygous state, confers great resistance to a lethal disease"

I do think about it that way. Note that your only example thus far of an actual random mutation has been degenerative. And yes, people who die from this don't reproduce much afterwards.

"How about cystic fibrosis? If "sick things don't reproduce well", cystic fibrosis should have been history long before modern medicine got around to diagnosing it."

????

So you are saying that natural selection doesn't work?

"Try looking up "ribosomal RNA sequencing" sometime, since you say you're big on scientific papers."

rRNA sequencing conflicts with the morphological data in many cases.

"How could life arise from non-life? The Wiki entry on "origin of life" has a good summary of the theories on how that could happen. As well as the experimental proof behind them."

Yes, there's many theories. But the "proof"s simply aren't there. Try checking out:

Chance and Necessity Do Not Explain the Origin of Life

Origin of life on earth and Shannon's theory of communication.

You also have the problem that before DNA-editting enzymes, the error rate would be too high to support life, but the enzymes are encoded by DNA.

Also there's the little problem that, before enzymes, the reaction rate would be way too slow to do anything of interest before being totally destroyed.

You also seem to be misunderstanding the idea of Intelligent Design (and even creationism). First of all, ID is compatible with (but does not require) common descent. Neither creationism nor intelligent design require a designer to be continually tinkering throughout natural history. The point is that the processes in the cell are ultimately _telic_ processes. They are informational processes, guided by the information that was originally coded. The Darwinian idea is that information can generate itself. Demski has handily refuted such idea using basic math (any search space involving more than 500 bits to achieve the next fitness level is basically impossible).

The quintessential ID hypothesis is probably Davison's Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis (previously called the Semi-Meiotic Theory) which says that phylogeny follows a semi-directed path just like ontogeny does.

The quintessential Creationary hypothesis is probably Todd Wood's Altruistic Genetic Element hypothesis.

Also, if you're interested, two good examinations of neo-Darwinism are:

A Biochemical Mechanism for Nonrandom Mutations and Evolution

and

This is not real science. Go to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ (National Center for Biotechnology Information) and type in "Ceragenin" in ENTREZ, and you will find zero hits. Anyone who knows how to search the scientific literature will tell that this means this is almost certainly a hoax.

"Aren't you actually grossly violating that by attempting to bring forth an untruth because you're too lazy to check the evidence?"

I have checked the evidence.

"Evolution and natural selection is the cause of most, if not all, variation in the biological world."

This is simply false. Natural selection has not been able to explain hardly anything. It is simply invoked. Read some biological papers. Whenever something new is found, it is simply listed as "having evolved" without any discussion about how the evolution could even have taken place.

_Most_ of the variation that takes place is the result of Mendellian inheritance, which, by the way, was discovered by a creationist (who used it to argue _against_ transformism).

The environment induces a large part of variance. Scott Gilbert has written about many of these, include variance resulting from an animal sensing predatory animals in the environment, and specifically changing their morphology to account for it. The process of genetic assimilation will make these changes the default morphology even in absence of the predator after a certain number of generations.

Likewise, microbes can change their genome in response to the environment. They can use transposons to activate latent genes, they can induce a highly regulated mutagenesis which produces almost entirely beneficial mutations.

Natural selection explains almost nothing. All natural selection means is that dead things don't reproduce, and sick things don't reproduce well. This is a conservative, not a creative process. And random mutation has too big of a search space to do anything productive. Perhaps you should take a 21st century view of evolution rather than the 1950's version of it you are looking at now.

Please tell me what the evidence is that (a) everything shares a common ancestor, and that (b) random mutation + natural selection is sufficient for creating the diversity that exists today from that common ancestor. If you want to be really adventurous, you can also show how (c) life could have proceeded from non-life.

Also, while we're at it, you could try showing how choice can arise through material mechanisms. If choice can't arise through material mechanisms, then either (a) choice as a real entity doesn't exist, or (b) a material view of origins is insufficient.

"Aren't you actually grossly violating that by attempting to bring forth an untruth because you're too lazy to check the evidence?"

I have checked the evidence.

"Evolution and natural selection is the cause of most, if not all, variation in the biological world."

This is simply false. Natural selection has not been able to explain hardly anything. It is simply invoked. Read some biological papers. Whenever something new is found, it is simply listed as "having evolved" without any discussion about how the evolution could even have taken place.

_Most_ of the variation that takes place is the result of Mendellian inheritance, which, by the way, was discovered by a creationist (who used it to argue _against_ transformism).

The environment induces a large part of variance. Scott Gilbert has written about many of these, include variance resulting from an animal sensing predatory animals in the environment, and specifically changing their morphology to account for it. The process of genetic assimilation will make these changes the default morphology even in absence of the predator after a certain number of generations.

Likewise, microbes can change their genome in response to the environment. They can use transposons to activate latent genes, they can induce a highly regulated mutagenesis which produces almost entirely beneficial mutations.

Natural selection explains almost nothing. All natural selection means is that dead things don't reproduce, and sick things don't reproduce well. This is a conservative, not a creative process. And random mutation has too big of a search space to do anything productive. Perhaps you should take a 21st century view of evolution rather than the 1950's version of it you are looking at now.

Please tell me what the evidence is that (a) everything shares a common ancestor, and that (b) random mutation + natural selection is sufficient for creating the diversity that exists today from that common ancestor. If you want to be really adventurous, you can also show how (c) life could have proceeded from non-life.

Also, while we're at it, you could try showing how choice can arise through material mechanisms. If choice can't arise through material mechanisms, then either (a) choice as a real entity doesn't exist, or (b) a material view of origins is insufficient.

"Aren't you actually grossly violating that by attempting to bring forth an untruth because you're too lazy to check the evidence?"

I have checked the evidence.

"Evolution and natural selection is the cause of most, if not all, variation in the biological world."

This is simply false. Natural selection has not been able to explain hardly anything. It is simply invoked. Read some biological papers. Whenever something new is found, it is simply listed as "having evolved" without any discussion about how the evolution could even have taken place.

_Most_ of the variation that takes place is the result of Mendellian inheritance, which, by the way, was discovered by a creationist (who used it to argue _against_ transformism).

The environment induces a large part of variance. Scott Gilbert has written about many of these, include variance resulting from an animal sensing predatory animals in the environment, and specifically changing their morphology to account for it. The process of genetic assimilation will make these changes the default morphology even in absence of the predator after a certain number of generations.

Likewise, microbes can change their genome in response to the environment. They can use transposons to activate latent genes, they can induce a highly regulated mutagenesis which produces almost entirely beneficial mutations.

Natural selection explains almost nothing. All natural selection means is that dead things don't reproduce, and sick things don't reproduce well. This is a conservative, not a creative process. And random mutation has too big of a search space to do anything productive. Perhaps you should take a 21st century view of evolution rather than the 1950's version of it you are looking at now.

Please tell me what the evidence is that (a) everything shares a common ancestor, and that (b) random mutation + natural selection is sufficient for creating the diversity that exists today from that common ancestor. If you want to be really adventurous, you can also show how (c) life could have proceeded from non-life.

Also, while we're at it, you could try showing how choice can arise through material mechanisms. If choice can't arise through material mechanisms, then either (a) choice as a real entity doesn't exist, or (b) a material view of origins is insufficient.

Not just the platypus either, but other monotremes (literaly, one hole, I'll leave you to imagine the details) including the Echidna are strongly suspected of having electrosenory receptors.

A bit more info http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9720114&dopt=Abstract and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotreme.

Maybe this is something else left behind in monotremes from an early link with sharks alongside laying eggs and looking ridiculous out of water.

What they call Ceragenins (specifically CSA-54) belong to a class called Cationic Steroid Antimicrobials. Google and Medline know about them.

Google for Cationic Steroid Antimicrobial

MedLine for Cationic Steroid Antimicrobial

Okay, read it again:

The former, and original, usage is now often considered archaic in English-speaking nations but still in use in other areas, in which the Americas is often described as a single continent or supercontinent, and therefore called America (singular).

The original poster was from Argentina, he was referring to America in a way that is apparently common where he is. It is "archaic" in the U.S, but still used elsewhere. It's not on a current map I kind find without more searching, but it doesn't need to be either. It is a fuctional and recognized way to group the American supercontinent, and that is the way he orignally used it. You're grasping at straws here and in fact, not proving a point at all. You're only proving your own ignorant belligerence.

More links with this usage: http://www.humanresources.umicore.com/ourPeople/lo cations/america.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14605839&dopt=Abstrac t
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3793/i s_199707/ai_n8766976

If you google '"American Continent" -north -south' you get 240,000 hits. Stop trolling.

Early onset of puberty may be related to diet in general, altogether separate from bovine hormones. It's known that obese children typically reach puberty earlier than children of normal weight.

We are not exactly dealing with The New England Journal of Medicine here. The first thing you see on the site is an invitation to visit the LiveScience store. It would appear that the purpose of this article is to sell something.

The arteries in the retina are the only arteries directly visible in the human body and physicians have been looking at them ever since von Helmolzvon Helmholtz invented the direct ophthalmoscope in 1851. This is the unit with which your doctor peers into your eye using one of his own. Unfortunately, due to the intractability of Snell's LawSnell's Law less than 10 degrees of retina can be seen. A good explanation of the exam is located here.here.. Should the doctor use both eyes with an indirect ophthalmoscope such as is used during retinal surgery considerably more retina can be seen but the image is aerial and cannot be photographed directly. Nevertheless a good retinal camera, taking multiple views which are then pieced together can provide a map of the retinal vessels. The gold standard for this sort of thing in diabetes was the Airlie House Classification developed in 1968.1968.. A modern study modern study might involve 7-field stereoscopic color photographs to get an accurate map. Accurate results cannot be produced with a single picture through an undilated pupil in an aging population suspected of disease. The way to diagnose hypertension is with a blood pressure cuff. The way to diagnose diabetes is with a blood test.