This is huge because it was still not very clear that Prions even existed. Many people in the field didn't agree with the very existence and this group has basically just proven that in fact proteins can cause disease. In the world if you had started sprouting off that proteins caused disease in as late as the 80's scientist would laugh and remove you from any future funding. Just to give you an idea, read this link at UCSD where Prions are discussed:
As for your question of how the disease works. Theories were made about how this was possible, dealing with stereochemistry of the prion proteins causing your natural protein to switch its stereochemistry to the unnatural state found within the Prions in a cascade effect resulting in death. It appears this group may have verified this theory.
ChromSorter PC: A Database of Chromosomal Regions Associated with Human Prostate Cancer.
Etim A, Zhou G, Wen X, Liu H, Ruotti V, Twigger S, Jin W, Matysiak B, Mathis J, Tonellato PJ, Datta MW.
Our increasing use of genetic and genomic strategies to understand human prostate cancer means that we need access to simplified and integrated information present in the associated biomedical literature. In particular, microarray gene expression studies and associated genetic mapping studies in prostate cancer would benefit from a generalized understanding of the prior work associated with this disease. This would allow us to focus subsequent laboratory studies to genomic regions already related to prostate cancer by other scientific methods. We have developed a database of prostate cancer related chromosomal information from the existing biomedical literature. The input material was based on a broad literature search with subsequent hand annotation of information relevant to prostate cancer. The database was then analyzed for identifiable trends in the whole scale literature. We have used this database, named ChromSorter PC, to present graphical summaries of chromosomal regions associated with prostate cancer broken down by age, ethnicity and experimental method. In addition we have placed the database information on the human genome using the Generic Genome Browser tool that allows the visualization of the data with respect to user generated datasets. This Genome Browser and the graphical analysis of the associated data are publicly available at prostategenomics.org (http://www.prostategenomics.org/datamining/chrom- sorter_pc.html ) and additional material from the database can be obtained by contacting the authors (mdatta@mcw.edu ).
PMID: 15113398 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
One of many projects using the human genome to help diagnose diseases. Remember cures cannot happen overnight, but scientist are working on it.
"Also the genes in the hybrid are (to simplify) "well attached" to the organism's genome; in GM organisms, the transgenic part is "loose". This increases the chance of it migrating into a virus, and we don't know the implications of this "looseness" over generations of reproduction"
Uhmmmm to put it simply, simplify, simplfied, NO. What you just stated is nonesense. How is this informative? This is in no way informative, misleading yes, informative no. The poster does not understand how Transgenics works. A Basic Website to get an idea:
http://www.anth.org/ifgene/beginner.htm
Remember this is just a basic overview.
Now down to the real stuff, an article done in 1993 testing the very statement you just made about genetic instability in tomatoes: Abstract Below:
"Ac-induced instability at the Xanthophyllic locus of tomato.
Peterson PW, Yoder JI.
Department of Vegetable Crops, University of California, Davis 95616.
To detect genomic instability caused by Ac elements in transgenic tomatoes, we used the incompletely dominant mutation Xanthophyllic-1 (Xa-1) as a whole plant marker gene. Xa-1 is located on chromosome 10 and in the heterozygote state causes leaves to be yellow. Transgenic Ac-containing tomato plants which differed in the location and number of their Ac elements were crossed to Xa-1 tester lines and F1 progeny were scored for aberrant somatic sectoring. Of 800 test and control F1 progeny screened, only four plants had aberrantly high levels of somatic sectors. Three of the plants had twin sectors consisting of green tissue adjacent to white tissue, and the other had twin sectors comprised of green tissue adjacent to tissue more yellow than the heterozygote background. Sectoring was inherited and the two sectoring phenotypes mapped to opposite homologs of chromosome 10; the green/yellow sectoring phenotype mapped in coupling to Xa-1 while the green/white sectoring phenotype mapped in repulsion. The two sectoring phenotypes cosegregated with different single, non-rearranged Acs, and loss of these Acs from the genome corresponded to the loss of sectoring. Sectoring was still observed after transposition of the Ac to a new site which indicated that sectoring was not limited to a single locus. In both sectored lines, meiotic recombination of the sectoring Ac to the opposite homolog caused the phenotype to switch between the green/yellow and the green/white phenotypes. Thus the two different sectoring phenotypes arose from the same Ac-induced mechanism; the phenotype depended on which chromosome 10 homolog the Ac was on. We believe that the twin sectors resulted from chromosome breakage mediated by a single intact, transposition-competent Ac element."
4 out of 800 plants showed abnormal F1 progeny. Thats exactly 0.5% of the F1 generation. Now lets look at mutation rates, polymerase that copies DNA is pretty good at what it does and at any single STR location, it is estimated that a mutation will occur only once every 500 'transmission-events' - or roughly 0.2% per generation. 0.5% to 0.2% could be statistically relevant but due to the selective resistant applied to the plants upon DNA insertion that is unlikley, in other words I disagree.
Note, this doesn't mean that other disadvantges do not exist for trangenic plants but what the above poster stated makes no sense.
P.S. I have to go teach a class, excuse the spelling and poor grammar please, thank you.
Very Nice as well, but arbitrary facts with no correlation are irrelevant.
True the average temperature of the earth is rising, but your argument is not logical in the sense that fact a does not support argument b.
CO2 emissions cannot be correlated to the increase in the earth's temperature. CO2 emissions and the people who sprout its affect have in no way proven that emissions equal an increase in the Earth's temperature. In fact go to www.pubmed.com and type in Carbon Dioxide Emissions, the scientific community has not proven anything that you blatantly state as being connected to fact a.
Here is a brief Abstract from a very recent journal publication:
"Only recently, within a few decades, have we realized that humanity significantly influences the global environment. In the early 1980s, atmospheric measurements confirmed basic concepts developed a decade earlier. These basic concepts showed that human activities were affecting the ozone layer. Later measurements and theoretical analyses have clearly connected observed changes in ozone to human-related increases of chlorine and bromine in the stratosphere. As a result of prompt international policy agreements, the combined abundances of ozone-depleting compounds peaked in 1994 and ozone is already beginning a slow path to recovery. A much more difficult problem confronting humanity is the impact of increasing levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases on global climate. The processes that connect greenhouse gas emissions to climate are very complex. This complexity has limited our ability to make a definitive projection of future climate change. Nevertheless, the range of projected climate change shows that global warming has the potential to severely impact human welfare and our planet as a whole. This paper evaluates the state of the scientific understanding of the global change issues, their potential impacts, and the relationships of scientific understanding to policy considerations."
As has been pointed out countless times before, correlation does not imply causality, wash and repeat with your argument and others.
Re:Aren't we still in an Ice Age?
on
A New Ice Age?
·
· Score: 1
500000/3000000000 = 1.6 X e-4
yes I can see how 500,000 years is a great set of data points.
Saying that they use statistics and the scientist actually doing this are two separate entities.
As well if they do actually use math you should know I could say I did a statistical test and got my data to have a 1% confidence that this phenomenon is caused by humans but that still doesn't mean that my model was correct.
The problem which you easily skimmed over is that Ecologist, Geophysicist, and etc. do not have an accurate model. They are using very limited data sets and claming that it is a prediction of the earth's weather pattern. As you well know if you have finite and small data points for what could be a rather large cycle, large data, you CANNOT make a claim such as what is being touted. Simple put little data does not equal good data and without good data statistics means nothing.
Re:Aren't we still in an Ice Age?
on
A New Ice Age?
·
· Score: 1
You sir no nothing about science. You CANNOT make a claim with the limited data points that humans currently have about weather patterns.
To put it simply, if the earths weather pattern is cyclic for the last billion years and we only have data spanning at most a couple thousand years, then for all intensive purposes we are making claims about temperature change with data for one point on a graph. One point for a sine wave tells us nothing. Our current weather pattern could be sitting anywhere on this sine wave, hence NO MODEL OF WEATHER HAS EVER BEEN CORRECT.
Repeat that with me, we know nothing about our weather pattern, we have no working model, period. We do know CFC's harm the ozone due to chemistry reactions preformed and repeated in a laboratory. However we know nothing about weather patterns and if humans have even remotely caused any shift or if this is just a natural trend upon the sine wave. In reality we don't even know if the Earths weather patterns behave like a sine wave. I think you get my point.
This may be true but to breach a contract/terms a resonable person in a similar situation would have to forsee this breach, which must result in some damage to the previous party, correct? or in other words
"A breach of contract committed by one of the parties is fundamental if it results in such detriment to the other party as substantially to deprive him of what he is entitled to expect under the contract, unless the party in breach did not foresee and a reasonable person of the same kind in the same circumstances would not have foreseen such a result."
So my question would be would most resonable people except such restrictive terms when buying the rights to music? I personally would not consider iTunes terms resonable.
Try the local college, Columbia etc. Usually the on campus bookstore sells laptops for a very good price, for example:
UCSD Bookstore
Of course San Diego is not New York but close enough?
The funniest thing about your sig and comments is that the only known ex-member of the KKK in congress is in fact a democrat from West Virginia, Robert C. Byrd.
As well you shouldn't associate any religion with extremist. Extremist of any group exist, You could use that same tatic about certain enviromentalist groups such as E.L.F.
the point isn't to believe one independent source, the point is to believe multiple sources and extract the information from them. Something you obviously have never done, per se your comment.
psssh, just a little hint but how do you think humans breath? gases pass through cell membranes, through the cell and back through another cell membrane into the blood stream. These are specialized cells, epithelial, but the point is dissolved gases are in all liquids, unless a liquid is degassed.
What evidence do you have that gases are not dissolved in our body fluids?
Correct to the contrary it is well known that dissovled gases are in our blood stream. This is partly how CO2 travels, indeed a small percentage but still occurs.
Well I cannot vouch for other schools but I know of one which is/has begun to switch and support access via off campus, University of California San Diego, which I can say has worked very nicely for me. I can access any research journal/library search that the university labs could access via my home computer.
I really suggest you read the article before sprouting this nonsense. A short cut from the article if you can understand: "They considered that ice melting at the poles and raising the overall sea level could be the culprit. Calculations showed, however, that "you would have to drop a 10-by-10-by-5-kilometer cube of it into the ocean every year for the past five years." Separate measurements of sea surface height from NASA's TOPEX/Poseidon mission don't support this scenario"
They are talking about Ocean currents causing this effect not global warming which was completely ignored by slashdot which I am not surprised considering they will post any story to push their political agenda. Read the article and think before you write such crap. Thanks
Thats a pretty seclusive statement. Yes I could argue all I want, but you are incorrect. Is it an RTS? Yes most certainly. Is it a standard, whatever the flip that means, RTS? No, I and anyone else with anyone intelligence to be inclusive would agree.
W3 has included so much new innovation for anyone to say its just standard either a.) hasn't played it b.) Has abs. no clue about what they are talking about or c.) Is a troll.
The answer I would say for you is C., so congrats Troll continue trolling away. Ahh jeesh and I bothered replying to this dribble.
No no even better lets just have it sit/wasted with the government god knows that Politicians/Government won't waste the money. Mmmmm gotta love the effectiveness there, lets see one research group got 10 million in California to see why women buy fruit at grocery stores.
As for your sarcasm, its an option for those who wish to invest their money. Of course we could just be restrictive and force everyone to do it your way cause apparently everyone is too stupid to do their own research.
This is true but the context of the headline refers to clone as that being of the whole tiger, not individual genetic material, from the headline "clone the Tasmanian Tiger." Hence while you are correct I would argue, which I have, that the statement is incorrect.
Sadly most people who read or have read this headline just assume that if you can PCR a gene you have a clone. This is just but one very small step to actually getting a clone. Scientist use PCR daily to mass produced desired DNA fragments for protein synthesis. For those who are curious a great guide on PCR can be found at:
http://www.med.yale.edu/genetics/ward/tavi/PCR.htm l
I have one thought for you about this so called landmark case, hmmm let see whos going to control a large portion of whats said in poitics now, hmmmmm let me think about it, why I believe that would be the media, you mean the newspapers will? No you couldn't mean that newspapers would be supportive of a bill which effectively elminates all competition of the direction that politics and the issues at large will be, of course L.A. Times wouldn't call it a Landmark Reform Bill for this reason at all.
As for me I think I prefer what the constitution has said, thanks but no thanks. This is one of the worst bills to ever be passed, and mark my words it will not be held up in any court.
Yes thats all great but think about it, think about what one opposable thumb did. Now add another one and think of all the power you could have,:).
I still don't see how you correlate the distinct possibility that 6 fingers is a bad trait, it could just as easily be a good one as well. As for correlate most genetic strenghts with survival, well just next time you look at your wife you think about that again. Your mate if you have one didn't just pick you because of personality or looks. Now Really:
I am a little confused by your statement, you make an assertion without even knowing if it is true, i.e. "so a superficial change like this is basically overlooked in the evolutionary process." How do you know this? The reality is you really don't, which was the point of the 6th finger. In the future maybe everyone could of had six fingers and society would be better off, or maybe not but ultimately you would never know because we cut them off, ahh if only I could have a second thumb.:)
yes this was assuming 98% of the genetic material was the same, I only left that out to make the point that mutations do not accurately predict what science tell us, i.e. evolution, and thus either something that we do not know has occured or well you get the point.
they as in doctors, and yes it does happen. It is simple to cut off a finger, especially for newborns. I suggest you do some research on this subject before you say it doesn't happen, because it does. If your kid had six fingers would you wanter him/her to keep it and be made fun of for the rest of his/her life, I doubt that.
No you didn't read my comment, if you even take into account a very unreasonable amount of mutation in a gene, the math still doesn't add up, to quote that some guy in the post below:
"we assume a human-chimpanzee primate generation time of 15 years, and take the standard mutation rate of 1 mutation per 109 bp, then how many years ago did humans and chimps diverge? If we ridiculously assume that every mutation gets fixed into the resulting population, and no mutations are selected out, then humans and chimps diverged about 300 million years ago"
this is not a resonable number by any account and thats assuming 1 mutation per 109 base pairs which is ridiculous. I suggest you reread a basic biology book about genetic expression.
as for your other comment hence mine about the improbability drive, i.e. hitchikers guide, which was my point that unless you assume the improbable is probable you are incorrect.
Slashdot Mirror
ucsd link
As for your question of how the disease works. Theories were made about how this was possible, dealing with stereochemistry of the prion proteins causing your natural protein to switch its stereochemistry to the unnatural state found within the Prions in a cascade effect resulting in death. It appears this group may have verified this theory.See Below:
- sorter_pc.html ) and additional material from the database can be obtained by contacting the authors (mdatta@mcw.edu ).
ChromSorter PC: A Database of Chromosomal Regions Associated with Human Prostate Cancer.
Etim A, Zhou G, Wen X, Liu H, Ruotti V, Twigger S, Jin W, Matysiak B, Mathis J, Tonellato PJ, Datta MW.
Our increasing use of genetic and genomic strategies to understand human prostate cancer means that we need access to simplified and integrated information present in the associated biomedical literature. In particular, microarray gene expression studies and associated genetic mapping studies in prostate cancer would benefit from a generalized understanding of the prior work associated with this disease. This would allow us to focus subsequent laboratory studies to genomic regions already related to prostate cancer by other scientific methods. We have developed a database of prostate cancer related chromosomal information from the existing biomedical literature. The input material was based on a broad literature search with subsequent hand annotation of information relevant to prostate cancer. The database was then analyzed for identifiable trends in the whole scale literature. We have used this database, named ChromSorter PC, to present graphical summaries of chromosomal regions associated with prostate cancer broken down by age, ethnicity and experimental method. In addition we have placed the database information on the human genome using the Generic Genome Browser tool that allows the visualization of the data with respect to user generated datasets. This Genome Browser and the graphical analysis of the associated data are publicly available at prostategenomics.org (http://www.prostategenomics.org/datamining/chrom
PMID: 15113398 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
One of many projects using the human genome to help diagnose diseases. Remember cures cannot happen overnight, but scientist are working on it.
"Also the genes in the hybrid are (to simplify) "well attached" to the organism's genome; in GM organisms, the transgenic part is "loose". This increases the chance of it migrating into a virus, and we don't know the implications of this "looseness" over generations of reproduction"
Uhmmmm to put it simply, simplify, simplfied, NO. What you just stated is nonesense. How is this informative? This is in no way informative, misleading yes, informative no. The poster does not understand how Transgenics works. A Basic Website to get an idea:
http://www.anth.org/ifgene/beginner.htm
Remember this is just a basic overview.
Now down to the real stuff, an article done in 1993 testing the very statement you just made about genetic instability in tomatoes: Abstract Below:
"Ac-induced instability at the Xanthophyllic locus of tomato.
Peterson PW, Yoder JI.
Department of Vegetable Crops, University of California, Davis 95616.
To detect genomic instability caused by Ac elements in transgenic tomatoes, we used the incompletely dominant mutation Xanthophyllic-1 (Xa-1) as a whole plant marker gene. Xa-1 is located on chromosome 10 and in the heterozygote state causes leaves to be yellow. Transgenic Ac-containing tomato plants which differed in the location and number of their Ac elements were crossed to Xa-1 tester lines and F1 progeny were scored for aberrant somatic sectoring. Of 800 test and control F1 progeny screened, only four plants had aberrantly high levels of somatic sectors. Three of the plants had twin sectors consisting of green tissue adjacent to white tissue, and the other had twin sectors comprised of green tissue adjacent to tissue more yellow than the heterozygote background. Sectoring was inherited and the two sectoring phenotypes mapped to opposite homologs of chromosome 10; the green/yellow sectoring phenotype mapped in coupling to Xa-1 while the green/white sectoring phenotype mapped in repulsion. The two sectoring phenotypes cosegregated with different single, non-rearranged Acs, and loss of these Acs from the genome corresponded to the loss of sectoring. Sectoring was still observed after transposition of the Ac to a new site which indicated that sectoring was not limited to a single locus. In both sectored lines, meiotic recombination of the sectoring Ac to the opposite homolog caused the phenotype to switch between the green/yellow and the green/white phenotypes. Thus the two different sectoring phenotypes arose from the same Ac-induced mechanism; the phenotype depended on which chromosome 10 homolog the Ac was on. We believe that the twin sectors resulted from chromosome breakage mediated by a single intact, transposition-competent Ac element."
4 out of 800 plants showed abnormal F1 progeny. Thats exactly 0.5% of the F1 generation. Now lets look at mutation rates, polymerase that copies DNA is pretty good at what it does and at any single STR location, it is estimated that a mutation will occur only once every 500 'transmission-events' - or roughly 0.2% per generation. 0.5% to 0.2% could be statistically relevant but due to the selective resistant applied to the plants upon DNA insertion that is unlikley, in other words I disagree.
Note, this doesn't mean that other disadvantges do not exist for trangenic plants but what the above poster stated makes no sense.
P.S. I have to go teach a class, excuse the spelling and poor grammar please, thank you.
Very Nice as well, but arbitrary facts with no correlation are irrelevant.
True the average temperature of the earth is rising, but your argument is not logical in the sense that fact a does not support argument b.
CO2 emissions cannot be correlated to the increase in the earth's temperature. CO2 emissions and the people who sprout its affect have in no way proven that emissions equal an increase in the Earth's temperature. In fact go to www.pubmed.com and type in Carbon Dioxide Emissions, the scientific community has not proven anything that you blatantly state as being connected to fact a.
Here is a brief Abstract from a very recent journal publication:
"Only recently, within a few decades, have we realized that humanity significantly influences the global environment. In the early 1980s, atmospheric measurements confirmed basic concepts developed a decade earlier. These basic concepts showed that human activities were affecting the ozone layer. Later measurements and theoretical analyses have clearly connected observed changes in ozone to human-related increases of chlorine and bromine in the stratosphere. As a result of prompt international policy agreements, the combined abundances of ozone-depleting compounds peaked in 1994 and ozone is already beginning a slow path to recovery. A much more difficult problem confronting humanity is the impact of increasing levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases on global climate. The processes that connect greenhouse gas emissions to climate are very complex. This complexity has limited our ability to make a definitive projection of future climate change. Nevertheless, the range of projected climate change shows that global warming has the potential to severely impact human welfare and our planet as a whole. This paper evaluates the state of the scientific understanding of the global change issues, their potential impacts, and the relationships of scientific understanding to policy considerations."
As has been pointed out countless times before,
correlation does not imply causality, wash and repeat with your argument and others.
500000/3000000000 = 1.6 X e-4
yes I can see how 500,000 years is a great set of data points.
Saying that they use statistics and the scientist actually doing this are two separate entities.
As well if they do actually use math you should know I could say I did a statistical test and got my data to have a 1% confidence that this phenomenon is caused by humans but that still doesn't mean that my model was correct.
The problem which you easily skimmed over is that Ecologist, Geophysicist, and etc. do not have an accurate model. They are using very limited data sets and claming that it is a prediction of the earth's weather pattern. As you well know if you have finite and small data points for what could be a rather large cycle, large data, you CANNOT make a claim such as what is being touted. Simple put little data does not equal good data and without good data statistics means nothing.
You sir no nothing about science. You CANNOT make a claim with the limited data points that humans currently have about weather patterns.
To put it simply, if the earths weather pattern is cyclic for the last billion years and we only have data spanning at most a couple thousand years, then for all intensive purposes we are making claims about temperature change with data for one point on a graph. One point for a sine wave tells us nothing. Our current weather pattern could be sitting anywhere on this sine wave, hence NO MODEL OF WEATHER HAS EVER BEEN CORRECT.
Repeat that with me, we know nothing about our weather pattern, we have no working model, period. We do know CFC's harm the ozone due to chemistry reactions preformed and repeated in a laboratory. However we know nothing about weather patterns and if humans have even remotely caused any shift or if this is just a natural trend upon the sine wave. In reality we don't even know if the Earths weather patterns behave like a sine wave. I think you get my point.
This may be true but to breach a contract/terms a resonable person in a similar situation would have to forsee this breach, which must result in some damage to the previous party, correct? or in other words
"A breach of contract committed by one of the parties is fundamental if it results in such detriment to the other party as substantially to deprive him of what he is entitled to expect under the contract, unless the party in breach did not foresee and a reasonable person of the same kind in the same circumstances would not have foreseen such a result."
So my question would be would most resonable people except such restrictive terms when buying the rights to music? I personally would not consider iTunes terms resonable.
for more information: Contract Breach
Try the local college, Columbia etc. Usually the on campus bookstore sells laptops for a very good price, for example:
UCSD Bookstore
Of course San Diego is not New York but close enough?
The funniest thing about your sig and comments is that the only known ex-member of the KKK in congress is in fact a democrat from West Virginia, Robert C. Byrd.
As well you shouldn't associate any religion with extremist. Extremist of any group exist, You could use that same tatic about certain enviromentalist groups such as E.L.F.
Funny thing is your basing one game in beta verses a game that is out on the market. Hmmm I wonder if I should believe your analysis?
Secondly what's up with the AC, you scared to have your opinion stuck to you?
"Name three independent, objective and accurate sources of information available on the Internet."
w .foxnews.com
Doesn't exist, if you believe anyone is independent your as foolish as you sound, however just four opposite sources:
www.gulfnews.com
www.jpost.com
www.cnn.com/ww
www.morgenpost.de
the point isn't to believe one independent source, the point is to believe multiple sources and extract the information from them. Something you obviously have never done, per se your comment.
psssh, just a little hint but how do you think humans breath? gases pass through cell membranes, through the cell and back through another cell membrane into the blood stream. These are specialized cells, epithelial, but the point is dissolved gases are in all liquids, unless a liquid is degassed.
What evidence do you have that gases are not dissolved in our body fluids?
Correct to the contrary it is well known that dissovled gases are in our blood stream. This is partly how CO2 travels, indeed a small percentage but still occurs.
Well I cannot vouch for other schools but I know of one which is/has begun to switch and support access via off campus, University of California San Diego, which I can say has worked very nicely for me. I can access any research journal/library search that the university labs could access via my home computer.
I really suggest you read the article before sprouting this nonsense. A short cut from the article if you can understand: "They considered that ice melting at the poles and raising the overall sea level could be the culprit. Calculations showed, however, that "you would have to drop a 10-by-10-by-5-kilometer cube of it into the ocean every year for the past five years." Separate measurements of sea surface height from NASA's TOPEX/Poseidon mission don't support this scenario"
They are talking about Ocean currents causing this effect not global warming which was completely ignored by slashdot which I am not surprised considering they will post any story to push their political agenda. Read the article and think before you write such crap. Thanks
Thats a pretty seclusive statement. Yes I could argue all I want, but you are incorrect. Is it an RTS? Yes most certainly. Is it a standard, whatever the flip that means, RTS? No, I and anyone else with anyone intelligence to be inclusive would agree.
W3 has included so much new innovation for anyone to say its just standard either a.) hasn't played it b.) Has abs. no clue about what they are talking about or c.) Is a troll.
The answer I would say for you is C., so congrats Troll continue trolling away. Ahh jeesh and I bothered replying to this dribble.
No no even better lets just have it sit/wasted with the government god knows that Politicians/Government won't waste the money. Mmmmm gotta love the effectiveness there, lets see one research group got 10 million in California to see why women buy fruit at grocery stores.
As for your sarcasm, its an option for those who wish to invest their money. Of course we could just be restrictive and force everyone to do it your way cause apparently everyone is too stupid to do their own research.
This is true but the context of the headline refers to clone as that being of the whole tiger, not individual genetic material, from the headline "clone the Tasmanian Tiger." Hence while you are correct I would argue, which I have, that the statement is incorrect.
You are right on the nail head.
m l
Sadly most people who read or have read this headline just assume that if you can PCR a gene you have a clone. This is just but one very small step to actually getting a clone. Scientist use PCR daily to mass produced desired DNA fragments for protein synthesis. For those who are curious a great guide on PCR can be found at:
http://www.med.yale.edu/genetics/ward/tavi/PCR.ht
I have one thought for you about this so called landmark case, hmmm let see whos going to control a large portion of whats said in poitics now, hmmmmm let me think about it, why I believe that would be the media, you mean the newspapers will? No you couldn't mean that newspapers would be supportive of a bill which effectively elminates all competition of the direction that politics and the issues at large will be, of course L.A. Times wouldn't call it a Landmark Reform Bill for this reason at all.
As for me I think I prefer what the constitution has said, thanks but no thanks. This is one of the worst bills to ever be passed, and mark my words it will not be held up in any court.
Yes thats all great but think about it, think about what one opposable thumb did. Now add another one and think of all the power you could have, :).
:)
I still don't see how you correlate the distinct possibility that 6 fingers is a bad trait, it could just as easily be a good one as well. As for correlate most genetic strenghts with survival, well just next time you look at your wife you think about that again. Your mate if you have one didn't just pick you because of personality or looks. Now Really:
I am a little confused by your statement, you make an assertion without even knowing if it is true, i.e. "so a superficial change like this is basically overlooked in the evolutionary process." How do you know this? The reality is you really don't, which was the point of the 6th finger. In the future maybe everyone could of had six fingers and society would be better off, or maybe not but ultimately you would never know because we cut them off, ahh if only I could have a second thumb.
yes this was assuming 98% of the genetic material was the same, I only left that out to make the point that mutations do not accurately predict what science tell us, i.e. evolution, and thus either something that we do not know has occured or well you get the point.
they as in doctors, and yes it does happen. It is simple to cut off a finger, especially for newborns. I suggest you do some research on this subject before you say it doesn't happen, because it does. If your kid had six fingers would you wanter him/her to keep it and be made fun of for the rest of his/her life, I doubt that.
No you didn't read my comment, if you even take into account a very unreasonable amount of mutation in a gene, the math still doesn't add up, to quote that some guy in the post below:
"we assume a human-chimpanzee primate generation time of 15 years, and take the standard mutation rate of 1 mutation per 109 bp, then how many years ago did humans and chimps diverge? If we ridiculously assume that every mutation gets fixed into the resulting population, and no mutations are selected out, then humans and chimps diverged about 300 million years ago"
this is not a resonable number by any account and thats assuming 1 mutation per 109 base pairs which is ridiculous. I suggest you reread a basic biology book about genetic expression.
as for your other comment hence mine about the improbability drive, i.e. hitchikers guide, which was my point that unless you assume the improbable is probable you are incorrect.