My apologies for skipping explanation steps and also of the term ‘lay person’, although the commenter seemed to indicate that he was a software engineer and that he was all ears for a further explanation. When I said three letter code, I was referring to the triplet code in which RNA is made into protein. I appreciate you calling out my misstatement.
Never the less, what I find more interesting is that we like to talk about how mutation is random. Interestingly, the probability of one particular base becoming mutated is somewhat random but what it mutates into is not. We actually know pretty darn well the probability that one specific nucleotide came from another. That was what I meant by chemistry of mutation. That’s why this approach is considered very valid. This has been done before in many other papers actually. I find it to be pretty darn cool.
I would like to address the idea of working backwards in biology. I can see how ridiculous this methodology would seem to the lay person. However, it is a bit similar than say the linux kernel. Biology is a three letter code of chemical components. These three letters have known translations and the chemistry of mutations is very well understood. In addition, at some point, multiple species arise from a common ancestor. These lineages of speciation are fairly well understood. Basically, you work backwards so that you get to a common ancestor via the most probable mutation path. I would be like if you took the kernel example, except that we know pretty well the probability of programmers to use certain formatting/variables and there were many many more kernels that arose from a common kernel. That way predicting the order of past events could be estimated fairly well. In addition, with biology, the translations are known so it would be like compiling and running the code with each backwards guess to make sure that there wouldn’t be an endless loop or crash. Hopefully that somewhat makes sense.
Most people scoff at degrees from an online university... because anyone can cheat their way through any test of knowledge. I teach at a major university and the idea of labs on a computer is horrific! I myself took a molecular genetics lab on a computer. While the simulation was wonderful, it was ultimately useless... you can not teach lab techniques on a computer, period.
AHAHAHAHA, the guy clearly can not formulate an argument which lacks biased and sexist undertones. Really though, this article has to be a tad off about the 'invention' of quorum sensing... We've all known for a while that there is an amplification and synchronization event among bacteria, it was just a matter of how.
Um, no. We belong to the same genus not species. Assuming that is what you meant, what exactly are the concerns of cloning a human?
Most arguments I hear typically involve a religious appeal and we all know how well science and religion mix. Aside from that, I am not so sure any religion would be quick to embrace a living Neanderthal.
The best argument I could think of against cloning a Neanderthal would be the concerns I have for it's health and happiness. We know very little of the culture, diet, needs, or temperament of Neanderthals. On the other hand, we do know what a good diet consists of and what generally makes humans happy. Our cultures are rather well studied too. A cloned human living a healthy and happy life doesn't seem far fetched to me. I am not so sure about the Neanderthal.
None of this means I would rush out and clone humans or Neanderthals but I will say the concerns are not the same.
Actually, you just described a subspecies... Different species don't interbreed, that is part of the definition. The argument in the scientific community is whether or not neanderthal and sapiens bread together, in which cause they would be of the same species and different subspecies... you are a homo sapiens sapiens
amino acids line up into RNA and DNA? You fooled me, I was under the impression that amino acids only composed proteins, wow. My mind is blown! The experiement was to prove that conditions of early earth could lead to many precursors to life. I think that it formed lipids but no real sugars. If you think at all that scientists will ever make reactions that generate life from only amonia and water with electricity you are crazy. The reactions presumably happened over MANY millions of years. We speed up reactions all the time, but typically with enzymes... which u cant throw into the mix and heat, oh yeah, early earth was pretty darn hot so you aren't gonna speed that one up any more than the million years... This hypothesis is VERY credible in the "real" scientific world. It's just that you are misinterpreting the experiment's hypothesis and making it so that humans can recreate millions of years in months, WRONG! By the way, real scientists have terrible english skills so don't even bother commenting on that aspect.
I have actually followed this labs work for some time. The simple truth is that the whole evolution/origin of life concept has a whole lot to do with probability. In fact there is a great argument for life owing much thanks to the moon for it's tidal forces and thus increasing of concentrations of substances in tidal pools. That being said probability of chemical change increases vastly with time and there was a whole lot of time before life arose. I do not think we can even fathem the amount of time to create life from scratch and we certainly will not do it. However, this offers understanding as to what steps were likely taken to reach where things are now.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, Ivermectin is the drug given as a mixture of 2 different substances of the avermectin family.
yeah, it's the drug is spelled Ivermectin, among many other botch ups!
My apologies for skipping explanation steps and also of the term ‘lay person’, although the commenter seemed to indicate that he was a software engineer and that he was all ears for a further explanation. When I said three letter code, I was referring to the triplet code in which RNA is made into protein. I appreciate you calling out my misstatement. Never the less, what I find more interesting is that we like to talk about how mutation is random. Interestingly, the probability of one particular base becoming mutated is somewhat random but what it mutates into is not. We actually know pretty darn well the probability that one specific nucleotide came from another. That was what I meant by chemistry of mutation. That’s why this approach is considered very valid. This has been done before in many other papers actually. I find it to be pretty darn cool.
I would like to address the idea of working backwards in biology. I can see how ridiculous this methodology would seem to the lay person. However, it is a bit similar than say the linux kernel. Biology is a three letter code of chemical components. These three letters have known translations and the chemistry of mutations is very well understood. In addition, at some point, multiple species arise from a common ancestor. These lineages of speciation are fairly well understood. Basically, you work backwards so that you get to a common ancestor via the most probable mutation path. I would be like if you took the kernel example, except that we know pretty well the probability of programmers to use certain formatting/variables and there were many many more kernels that arose from a common kernel. That way predicting the order of past events could be estimated fairly well. In addition, with biology, the translations are known so it would be like compiling and running the code with each backwards guess to make sure that there wouldn’t be an endless loop or crash. Hopefully that somewhat makes sense.
Artists who sample should always give the original artist credit... This is a childish attempt to explain, or rather justify, a wrong AFTER the fact.
You also are attending college in one of the worst states for education, no offense...
Most people scoff at degrees from an online university... because anyone can cheat their way through any test of knowledge. I teach at a major university and the idea of labs on a computer is horrific! I myself took a molecular genetics lab on a computer. While the simulation was wonderful, it was ultimately useless... you can not teach lab techniques on a computer, period.
AHAHAHAHA, the guy clearly can not formulate an argument which lacks biased and sexist undertones. Really though, this article has to be a tad off about the 'invention' of quorum sensing... We've all known for a while that there is an amplification and synchronization event among bacteria, it was just a matter of how.
Um, no. We belong to the same genus not species. Assuming that is what you meant, what exactly are the concerns of cloning a human? Most arguments I hear typically involve a religious appeal and we all know how well science and religion mix. Aside from that, I am not so sure any religion would be quick to embrace a living Neanderthal. The best argument I could think of against cloning a Neanderthal would be the concerns I have for it's health and happiness. We know very little of the culture, diet, needs, or temperament of Neanderthals. On the other hand, we do know what a good diet consists of and what generally makes humans happy. Our cultures are rather well studied too. A cloned human living a healthy and happy life doesn't seem far fetched to me. I am not so sure about the Neanderthal. None of this means I would rush out and clone humans or Neanderthals but I will say the concerns are not the same.
Actually, you just described a subspecies... Different species don't interbreed, that is part of the definition. The argument in the scientific community is whether or not neanderthal and sapiens bread together, in which cause they would be of the same species and different subspecies... you are a homo sapiens sapiens
amino acids line up into RNA and DNA? You fooled me, I was under the impression that amino acids only composed proteins, wow. My mind is blown! The experiement was to prove that conditions of early earth could lead to many precursors to life. I think that it formed lipids but no real sugars. If you think at all that scientists will ever make reactions that generate life from only amonia and water with electricity you are crazy. The reactions presumably happened over MANY millions of years. We speed up reactions all the time, but typically with enzymes... which u cant throw into the mix and heat, oh yeah, early earth was pretty darn hot so you aren't gonna speed that one up any more than the million years... This hypothesis is VERY credible in the "real" scientific world. It's just that you are misinterpreting the experiment's hypothesis and making it so that humans can recreate millions of years in months, WRONG! By the way, real scientists have terrible english skills so don't even bother commenting on that aspect.
I have actually followed this labs work for some time. The simple truth is that the whole evolution/origin of life concept has a whole lot to do with probability. In fact there is a great argument for life owing much thanks to the moon for it's tidal forces and thus increasing of concentrations of substances in tidal pools. That being said probability of chemical change increases vastly with time and there was a whole lot of time before life arose. I do not think we can even fathem the amount of time to create life from scratch and we certainly will not do it. However, this offers understanding as to what steps were likely taken to reach where things are now.