r can they make a probe specific for only AxxCTGxCCTT?
Yes. The probe would be either a cocktail of all the permutations of the listed sequence, or it could be AIICTGICCTT, where I is inosine. Inosine is a nitrogenous base derived from adenosine which can pair up with any of the four standard nucleotides.
I suspect that this technique will never actually be as sensitive as PCR
I disagree. While PCR can detect single copies of sequences in theory, it rarely (if ever) does so in common practice. There are tweaks you can do that will help amplify the system, and use of specialized detection equipment can get it down pretty low, but in my experience, anything less than ~100 copies of target is unreliably detectable, at best.
As for targets, a decamer is good in theory, but in practice you run into several problems using a probe that small. Most people use 20mers for PCR and sequencing applications.
This technique is a vast improvement over current technology for nucleotide detection. I've spread the paper around the department here, and people are talking about it quite a bit. It is in no way ready for prime time, and the brief article supplied by the link paints a rosy picture. The paper is more informative, and clues you in that due to steric influences, this can't be applied to any sequence bigger than (probably) about 100bp. It's still useful in its current form, but you'd have to abuse your sample before you could use it. It's primary use has not been lost on our gene regulation people. You can use this to easily see if protein x binds to sequence y and deforms it. THAT is new...and can really help some people around here.
Also, according to the paper in PNAS, it would seem that a SNP(*) would alter the perturbation of the bead differently than a 100% match. You wouldn't get a pure helix, so the stretch/shrink that results from the hybridization would differ if there was a SNP or two. I don't know the physics well enough to say if that difference would be detectable by the insturmentation they describe, but if they can detect the kind of deflection they discuss in the paper, I imagine it wouldn't be too dificult.
So, who's buying this tech? This could easily replace many of the current tools used to analyze gene expression at the bench. It may be years or decades brfore there is actual treatment based on this tech, but it may be used at the bench in the next few years. People (like my lab, for instance) spend huge ammounts of money to assay changes in RNA transcription under certain circumstances. If this could be measured in real time...hell, even if it could be measured quickly.
For those in the field, imagine being able to assay the ammount of your transcript of interest in an RNA sample as easily as you are able to measure total RNA. Pop a cuvette in a specialized spec and get a reading? You could have your answer in seconds as opposed to hours. Granted, the tech is not at that point yet, but it could easily get there in a few years.
Again I ask....what company is buying this? I want stock in them NOW.
or the BBC could be blowing the data out of porportion
The responsibility goes nowhere. People who know this stuff react with "Wow, interesting. Can I see the data?". Media types get wind of stuff, and go ask the scientists questions. They don't listen to half of it, don't understand most of the other half, and spout off "We've got the cure for cancer!!!", when all the scientist really said is that if we look at mice deficient in gene X, they are highly resistant to a few methods of giving them a specific form of cancer.
They are, but the doses here aren't high enough to hurt you.
This reminded me of something I heard years ago, in college. A guy from a cancer research organization (Stehlin) came by & talked to our class about cancer treatments. One of the investigative techniques focused on microwaves.
Apparently, it's more damaging to cancer than normal cells (has to do with plasma membrane composition). If exposed to low levels for a fairly long period of time (several minutes to an hour a day for several weeks), the tumor would dissolve and the local normal tissue would remain. The main problem they had at the time, he said, was that the cancer cells tended to lyse all at the same time, and the subject would go into lethal toxic shock, a prety bad way to go(this was working in mice.)
This was a while ago, 1990 or 91. I haven't heard anything from them about this stuff in a while, so it probably fell through.
I wonder what the success rate of biopsy diagnosis is...
Biopsy is nearly 100% effective; the false positive/negative risks are low in the hands & eyes of a good pathologist. The hard part is knowing what to biopsy. Some other test has to be done beforehand to show you where the putative cancer is.
Even tumors ID'd with this device would need to be confirmed via biopsy, MRI or CAT scan. Most likely MRI followed by biopsy.
As for publication, they may not have submitted it yet (need more data, timid researchers), or reviewers haven't finished their reviews yet, or the editor is sitting on it to publish it alongside another paper, or the BBC could be blowing the data out of porportion (the latter is the most likely. Happens all the time.)
That said, I (obviously) agree, and must add a bit to it: That it is often the framework, or the structure, that gives us the freedom. Starting from absolutely nothing is daunting, and you quickly become constrained by the enormity of the task. Starting with a framework makes things easier, and frees your creativity.
Think of it this way: Which would get your creative juices flowing: "Write a short poem" or "Write a haiku"?
I DM'd for about 3 years while in college, and we very rarely checked anybody's calculations unless we knew the person was new, uncomfortable, or had been dry a while.
We would typically announce the depths for places of interest, and state the bottom times for each; normally from memory. Anybody short on experience or clues would get a little extra attention and be steered from deep dives, but once again, we didn't make a habit of checking everybody's calculations.
As for NN, for those that don't know, getting narc'd is a very odd feeling. It's like have a "drunk/sober" light switch in your head. There was a HUGE deco chamber where I went to college, and they took us down once to get narc'd. Did it once by accident on an oil rig, too (what a way to find out your depth gauge is busted....said my max depth was 42' for that dive). A LOT more scary there.
Funny story....When we did the deco chamber, one guy brought along a bunch of condoms. We tied off the end at ~30m and let Boyle go to work...6 of us wound up walking across campus with condoms inflated to the size of Louisville Sluggers.
I go back to the first, and most important, statement in my post.
There are good candidates among Evolutionary theory for this line of reasoning. This is certainly not one of them. Arguing along this tact makes you look petty.
Post as something other than AC and I will address your questions more directly. I'm tired of arguing with someone with so little confidence in their tactics that they will not show their face.
There are much better candidates for this line of reasoning. You should chose battles that don't make you look so petty.
Oh, excuse me. You're posting as AC. I guess you don't care if you look petty.
There is no logical reason for L being chosen. There is, however, a logical reason for one being chosen. It is more efficient to have machinery geared to only use one type, so it is advantageous to pick L or D. A hypothetical organism that sprouted up that could use both would be at a disadvantage once the substances became abundant. One was "chosen" arbitrarily.
because evolutionists still don't have a solution and would rather not draw attention to the problem. This is just human nature; "can't explain a problem? don't draw attention to it."
There are good explanations for this, as stated above. And the reasoning behind it is as good as any logical conclusion can get. Little time is spent on this subject because the reasoning is so sound. It fits perfectly with the Evolutionary theory.
Also Miller had to create a "trap" to collect the amino acids being formed to protect them from breaking down again. What would the comparable "natural" trap be?
Standing water. He set up a trap to reduce the timescale. The reaction took place at the gas/liquid interface; reacted product that dissolved quickly would be preserved. Some fraction would always become dissolved, no matter how inefficient the process. Add 2-3 centuries and you have a substantial buildup. Miller just sped things up a bit with the trap.
Finally, the mix of both D and L aminos in Miller's soup presents a major problem. Living cells only use L amino acids. D aminos and proteins are toxic.
Not toxic, just useless. And this does not present any problem, major or otherwise. Any chemical process that generates chiral molecules (like amino acids) will give amixture of buth types. It is expected, and assumed.
As for the atmosphere, there is no convincing evidence (that I have heard) either way.
If the mix wasn't racemized, I would seriously think he had falsified the data. The amino acids were made chemically, not biologically. Any chiral compound made chemically will be racemic. (All but one of the amino acids are chiral)
It should be no surprise at all that the mixture was racemic. The reason only Creation "scientist's" websites say anything about it is because they are the only ones that think it has any relevance.
As for breakdown, they did break down quickly, that was in the original publications of the experiment.
The "break down as quickly as they are made" is a half truth. At the gas-liquid interface, this is true. The amino acids did break down very rapidly. However, a fraction of the products became dissolved in the liquid soon after formation, and were preserved. This caused a gradual buildup of product.
The part I don't understand is why so many people in the military keep voting right wing
Don't assume it's because they fear for their jobs. Although all sane military personnell don't want to go to war, and don't want to risk life & limb in an unecessary war, most continue to vote conservative/right/(insert label here) because most of them believe that those are the people that are right (as in correct). I say this as someone with exceptionally close personal ties to the US military. Although people say frequently that military personnell vote that way because of "job security", in doing so they call most military personell liars.
It's easy for right wing demagogues in Congress to stand up and bang on the table: they don't have to fight and neither do their children
I assume you say this based on the report that only 1 US Congressman has kids enlisted in the military. First, realize that the report enumerated kids enlisted. Not grandchildren, and not officers. Most Congressmen are well over 50, and their kids would be in their 30s & 40s which is far, far above the average enlisted age. People that stay in the military that long (10+ years) in the enlisted ranks are rare. A substantial number of US Congress served in the military (prior military service looks good on the ballot, those that serve are more likely to get elected). Also, several have kids that are officers or grandkids that are enlisted (Got that from Stars & Stripes...I'd have to scrounge for the source/exact numbers).
Job creation may be a partial priority of Congress, and they may address this priority substantially through the DoD, but I don't think the DoD itself holds this as a high priority.
It's still illegal, and wrong, for Joe to do that. He can't just barge in and take everything back, beating you up in the process. That is vigilanteism (sic?).
What it IS legal, (and proper, and The Right Thing to Do) is for Joe to call the cops, who in turn get a search warrant from a judge (not a clerk), then search your house & send you to jail for your crime.
Per dollar spent, it seems to create the least jobs. Trust me, those $3 billion fighter jets are not creating as many jobs as $3 billion should.
Really? How many jobs should a one-time expenditure of $3bn produce?
How many jobs are produced by that $3bn jet (pilot, ground crew, air tower crew, mechanics, the guys that built it, managed the guys that built it, and so on)?
What is the ratio of budget dollars/payroll dollars or budget dollars/employee in the corporate world?
Is "job creation" a priority of the DoD? Is "job creation" a priority of any corporation? Any corporation that has been extant for over a few decades?
Did you just say that a smaller government is a more efficient, or better government? So the fewer personell, bureaus, programs, etc that it has...the better? Wow.
OK, enough sarcasm.
Waste is waste. In my understanding, the post was in response to the assertation that money spent by the feds on R&D is wasted, while money spent by the feds & state govt on infrastructure is not. In both situations, a considerable ammount of money is wasted. The "Oregon wastes $" post was to counter the assertation that infrastructure money is somehow used more efficiently than R&D money.
Of course, I could be inutterably wrong about that...
The C-5 coffee pot that cost so much was becuase they needed a coffee pot that would work at altitude with the cabin de-pressed and doors open with hurricane force winds ripping around.
Personally, I've never been in that situation. But I imagine that if I, at some point found myself in exactly such a scenario, a functioning coffepot would not bring me a hell of a lot of solace.
Let's see, a reasoned post, using (somewhat) logical arguments. In response, a counterpost, making a categorical sound-bite statement with no logic or information to back it up.
If you actually want intelligent people to listen to you, you'll have to do better than that. At least make it sound like you didn't just pull it out of your ass.
What if you give the keys to your car to some drunk who then runs over a 4 year old?
Depends on if you knew he was drunk, or had good reason to suspect it.
What if you give a gun to a chimpanzee and he shoots someone?
You are a moron for giving a chimp a gun, but you are most likely not liable for murder. Certainly not for 1st degree murder . Manslaughter, negligent homicide, criminal neglect certainly.
The wireless network, however, is more analagous to a drunk guy jumping into your running car at a gas station and taking off, killing someone. You're an idiot for leaving your car running, but I don't think you'd be responsible for the person's death.
Just about everything, but most of it for the better, IMO.
Come to think of it, it's all for the better. Kids are great; they make you reanalyze everything in your life. It's amazing how trivial some of your old problems become in the face of a kid with a fever at 4AM. And there is nothing in this world that can beat a 2 yr old charging up to you, squealing your name with arms out for a hug as you walk in from work.
The above poster is correct; you now have twice as many people to care for, and twice as many priority sets to acount for. Factor in that two of those people are either impossible (5 yrs old) or exceptionally difficult (5-16+ yrs old) to reason with, and you are in for some difficulty. Explaining and accounting for priorites with people who's persoanlity, and therefore priorities, are in constant flux is very challenging.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. The probe would be either a cocktail of all the permutations of the listed sequence, or it could be AIICTGICCTT, where I is inosine. Inosine is a nitrogenous base derived from adenosine which can pair up with any of the four standard nucleotides.
I disagree. While PCR can detect single copies of sequences in theory, it rarely (if ever) does so in common practice. There are tweaks you can do that will help amplify the system, and use of specialized detection equipment can get it down pretty low, but in my experience, anything less than ~100 copies of target is unreliably detectable, at best.
As for targets, a decamer is good in theory, but in practice you run into several problems using a probe that small. Most people use 20mers for PCR and sequencing applications.
This technique is a vast improvement over current technology for nucleotide detection. I've spread the paper around the department here, and people are talking about it quite a bit. It is in no way ready for prime time, and the brief article supplied by the link paints a rosy picture. The paper is more informative, and clues you in that due to steric influences, this can't be applied to any sequence bigger than (probably) about 100bp. It's still useful in its current form, but you'd have to abuse your sample before you could use it. It's primary use has not been lost on our gene regulation people. You can use this to easily see if protein x binds to sequence y and deforms it. THAT is new...and can really help some people around here.
*SNP - Single Nucleotide Polymorphism.
For those in the field, imagine being able to assay the ammount of your transcript of interest in an RNA sample as easily as you are able to measure total RNA. Pop a cuvette in a specialized spec and get a reading? You could have your answer in seconds as opposed to hours. Granted, the tech is not at that point yet, but it could easily get there in a few years.
Again I ask....what company is buying this? I want stock in them NOW.
The responsibility goes nowhere. People who know this stuff react with "Wow, interesting. Can I see the data?". Media types get wind of stuff, and go ask the scientists questions. They don't listen to half of it, don't understand most of the other half, and spout off "We've got the cure for cancer!!!", when all the scientist really said is that if we look at mice deficient in gene X, they are highly resistant to a few methods of giving them a specific form of cancer.
This reminded me of something I heard years ago, in college. A guy from a cancer research organization (Stehlin) came by & talked to our class about cancer treatments. One of the investigative techniques focused on microwaves.
Apparently, it's more damaging to cancer than normal cells (has to do with plasma membrane composition). If exposed to low levels for a fairly long period of time (several minutes to an hour a day for several weeks), the tumor would dissolve and the local normal tissue would remain. The main problem they had at the time, he said, was that the cancer cells tended to lyse all at the same time, and the subject would go into lethal toxic shock, a prety bad way to go(this was working in mice.)
This was a while ago, 1990 or 91. I haven't heard anything from them about this stuff in a while, so it probably fell through.
Biopsy is nearly 100% effective; the false positive/negative risks are low in the hands & eyes of a good pathologist. The hard part is knowing what to biopsy. Some other test has to be done beforehand to show you where the putative cancer is.
Even tumors ID'd with this device would need to be confirmed via biopsy, MRI or CAT scan. Most likely MRI followed by biopsy.
As for publication, they may not have submitted it yet (need more data, timid researchers), or reviewers haven't finished their reviews yet, or the editor is sitting on it to publish it alongside another paper, or the BBC could be blowing the data out of porportion (the latter is the most likely. Happens all the time.)
You stole my point. :)
That said, I (obviously) agree, and must add a bit to it: That it is often the framework, or the structure, that gives us the freedom. Starting from absolutely nothing is daunting, and you quickly become constrained by the enormity of the task. Starting with a framework makes things easier, and frees your creativity.
Think of it this way: Which would get your creative juices flowing: "Write a short poem" or "Write a haiku"?
We would typically announce the depths for places of interest, and state the bottom times for each; normally from memory. Anybody short on experience or clues would get a little extra attention and be steered from deep dives, but once again, we didn't make a habit of checking everybody's calculations.
As for NN, for those that don't know, getting narc'd is a very odd feeling. It's like have a "drunk/sober" light switch in your head. There was a HUGE deco chamber where I went to college, and they took us down once to get narc'd. Did it once by accident on an oil rig, too (what a way to find out your depth gauge is busted....said my max depth was 42' for that dive). A LOT more scary there.
Funny story....When we did the deco chamber, one guy brought along a bunch of condoms. We tied off the end at ~30m and let Boyle go to work...6 of us wound up walking across campus with condoms inflated to the size of Louisville Sluggers.
There are good candidates among Evolutionary theory for this line of reasoning. This is certainly not one of them. Arguing along this tact makes you look petty.
Post as something other than AC and I will address your questions more directly. I'm tired of arguing with someone with so little confidence in their tactics that they will not show their face.
Goodbye.
Oh, excuse me. You're posting as AC. I guess you don't care if you look petty.
There is no logical reason for L being chosen. There is, however, a logical reason for one being chosen. It is more efficient to have machinery geared to only use one type, so it is advantageous to pick L or D. A hypothetical organism that sprouted up that could use both would be at a disadvantage once the substances became abundant. One was "chosen" arbitrarily.
because evolutionists still don't have a solution and would rather not draw attention to the problem. This is just human nature; "can't explain a problem? don't draw attention to it."
There are good explanations for this, as stated above. And the reasoning behind it is as good as any logical conclusion can get. Little time is spent on this subject because the reasoning is so sound. It fits perfectly with the Evolutionary theory.
Damn...let's hope no one patents the process...maybe we can find some prior art?
Standing water. He set up a trap to reduce the timescale. The reaction took place at the gas/liquid interface; reacted product that dissolved quickly would be preserved. Some fraction would always become dissolved, no matter how inefficient the process. Add 2-3 centuries and you have a substantial buildup. Miller just sped things up a bit with the trap.
Finally, the mix of both D and L aminos in Miller's soup presents a major problem. Living cells only use L amino acids. D aminos and proteins are toxic.
Not toxic, just useless. And this does not present any problem, major or otherwise. Any chemical process that generates chiral molecules (like amino acids) will give amixture of buth types. It is expected, and assumed.
As for the atmosphere, there is no convincing evidence (that I have heard) either way.
It should be no surprise at all that the mixture was racemic. The reason only Creation "scientist's" websites say anything about it is because they are the only ones that think it has any relevance.
As for breakdown, they did break down quickly, that was in the original publications of the experiment.
The "break down as quickly as they are made" is a half truth. At the gas-liquid interface, this is true. The amino acids did break down very rapidly. However, a fraction of the products became dissolved in the liquid soon after formation, and were preserved. This caused a gradual buildup of product.
Don't assume it's because they fear for their jobs. Although all sane military personnell don't want to go to war, and don't want to risk life & limb in an unecessary war, most continue to vote conservative/right/(insert label here) because most of them believe that those are the people that are right (as in correct). I say this as someone with exceptionally close personal ties to the US military. Although people say frequently that military personnell vote that way because of "job security", in doing so they call most military personell liars.
It's easy for right wing demagogues in Congress to stand up and bang on the table: they don't have to fight and neither do their children
I assume you say this based on the report that only 1 US Congressman has kids enlisted in the military. First, realize that the report enumerated kids enlisted. Not grandchildren, and not officers. Most Congressmen are well over 50, and their kids would be in their 30s & 40s which is far, far above the average enlisted age. People that stay in the military that long (10+ years) in the enlisted ranks are rare. A substantial number of US Congress served in the military (prior military service looks good on the ballot, those that serve are more likely to get elected). Also, several have kids that are officers or grandkids that are enlisted (Got that from Stars & Stripes...I'd have to scrounge for the source/exact numbers).
Job creation may be a partial priority of Congress, and they may address this priority substantially through the DoD, but I don't think the DoD itself holds this as a high priority.
What it IS legal, (and proper, and The Right Thing to Do) is for Joe to call the cops, who in turn get a search warrant from a judge (not a clerk), then search your house & send you to jail for your crime.
Shouldn't that be "just my 0.02"?
Really? How many jobs should a one-time expenditure of $3bn produce?
How many jobs are produced by that $3bn jet (pilot, ground crew, air tower crew, mechanics, the guys that built it, managed the guys that built it, and so on)?
What is the ratio of budget dollars/payroll dollars or budget dollars/employee in the corporate world?
Is "job creation" a priority of the DoD? Is "job creation" a priority of any corporation? Any corporation that has been extant for over a few decades?
Did you just say that a smaller government is a more efficient, or better government? So the fewer personell, bureaus, programs, etc that it has...the better? Wow.
OK, enough sarcasm.
Waste is waste. In my understanding, the post was in response to the assertation that money spent by the feds on R&D is wasted, while money spent by the feds & state govt on infrastructure is not. In both situations, a considerable ammount of money is wasted. The "Oregon wastes $" post was to counter the assertation that infrastructure money is somehow used more efficiently than R&D money.
Of course, I could be inutterably wrong about that...
Personally, I've never been in that situation. But I imagine that if I, at some point found myself in exactly such a scenario, a functioning coffepot would not bring me a hell of a lot of solace.
If you actually want intelligent people to listen to you, you'll have to do better than that. At least make it sound like you didn't just pull it out of your ass.
The name doesn't reference a part of the human anatomy, it's a reference to length. A regulation sized football is about 1 foot long.
Depends on if you knew he was drunk, or had good reason to suspect it.
What if you give a gun to a chimpanzee and he shoots someone?
You are a moron for giving a chimp a gun, but you are most likely not liable for murder. Certainly not for 1st degree murder . Manslaughter, negligent homicide, criminal neglect certainly.
The wireless network, however, is more analagous to a drunk guy jumping into your running car at a gas station and taking off, killing someone. You're an idiot for leaving your car running, but I don't think you'd be responsible for the person's death.
Come to think of it, it's all for the better. Kids are great; they make you reanalyze everything in your life. It's amazing how trivial some of your old problems become in the face of a kid with a fever at 4AM. And there is nothing in this world that can beat a 2 yr old charging up to you, squealing your name with arms out for a hug as you walk in from work.
The above poster is correct; you now have twice as many people to care for, and twice as many priority sets to acount for. Factor in that two of those people are either impossible (5 yrs old) or exceptionally difficult (5-16+ yrs old) to reason with, and you are in for some difficulty. Explaining and accounting for priorites with people who's persoanlity, and therefore priorities, are in constant flux is very challenging.