Helix

Break up the information into managable segments and then tackle them. Break it down by category and what info you need; group it together so it's easier to visualize. So, first see what the oxygen level is normally in a pond (I'm assuming that's what you mean.) See what the average levels are depending on: -Pond Size -Types of animal/plant life -surrounding environment (i.e. a lot of trees, desert, corporate wasteland etc) Then see, in theory, what phosphate does to oxygen. Does it bind or interact at all? If so (and it should if you're basing a project around it), then how and what are the results? More less? Put this together to see what, in a real environment, phosphate would do to oxygen levels taking into account all the other aspects (pond size etc). Form an experiment based on all this research (the last step might be the experiment) and see if it 1) matches up with previous research 2) matches up with your hypothesis. if it doesn't with one or the other or both, report it. No result is wrong, it's science. Good luck.

Okay well I'll parry vague with vague: It would have some good outcomes and some bad, it all depends.

Yes, it was username based up until a few months ago. Then they abrubtly changed to an e-mail format. Maybe sites like bugmenot contributed to the change...? In any case, great site J'Dona, that will be very useful.

Viruses cannot predate cellular life; they are dependant on cellular life for survival. They may be an offshoot, as was said, or they could be an accident, or even a freestanding "species" (species is in quotes because it is still being debated whether or not they're living).

Try any of these: (I'm not sure what details you already know, but these should be helpful) http://www.protocol-online.org/prot/Molecular_Biology/Protein/Western_Blotting/ http://www.sgul.ac.uk/depts/immunology/~dash/group/western.html http://www.assaydesigns.com/technical/protocols_western_blot.htm

Do you mean not have Chromosome 12 for example? Missing an entire chromosome would be fatal, just based on the logical assumption of how many genes would be lost. Also if that entire chromosome (or more than one) was lost during development then that cell wouldn't divide, it would senescence. So, to answer your question; even one lost chromosome should be fatal. As for gaining, that would be intersting, I would suppose the organism would live unless the double protein expression induced RNAi, which would negate the protein's activity. That would be bad.

Well' date=' that's like my answer for "what do you think about immortality?" I'm for it, obviously. But is it feasible? Right now that's a resounding 'No'. But even in the future I think the chances of the type of altering you're talking about it small, at best. For example:: Again, that would be amazing but that has a couple glaring flaws. Scientifically, that's not possible. When you say "eye" you mean our eye...yes that's a stroke of logic on my part. But when the body says "eye", it means the complicated network of blood vessels, retinal cells, rods, cones and partially dead epithelial cells (lens) that make up that eye. See? In biology it's not: face, arm, eye or even mouth. It's the basic blocks those are made of. So, scientifically, that's not possible (in the way you phrased it. We could maybe have altered eyes or something. Just not a falcon's. Out body doesn't think in those terms.) From a moral point of view, that may not be possible. Look at stem cells. That's a viable technology yet it has made almost imperceptible progress in the States. Why? Moral (political) opposition. People will argue about the boundaries of humanity. That this is creating a new species. That's a large problem to deal with. Because at the end of the day, science is logical, fundamentalists are not.

I would look for any Nature or Science papers on the technology, to see if he, or any one else, has published a scientific article on how it works. What was Discover's slant? Did they view it as solid idea or a promising technology that needs work?

Alright, let's hear it for loopholes!

Safemode doesn't work?...well then I'd definitely try a few adware/spyware programs.

I wash my hands after going to the bathroom and especially after I've been in the lab. As a random question, what biohazard level is ecoli O157:H7 (the bad kind). I know it's pathogenic and has been responsible for a few outbreaks (one from a picnic in upper PA). I would imagine level 2 because I haven't heard of anyone having to use grey zones.

Right that's why I said "there's a good chance" rather than "it definitely will".

I was saying if we have the gene there's a good chance we have the protein. We probably do have neuraminidase if we have the two things it regulates.

Try posting in the Mozilla help forums, I've had problems with extensions and they helped my fix it. Also, in the program files for mozilla is a Safe Mode icon (an .exe). It reverts firefox to default settings and should fix most problems. See if either of those work.

That would work for sure, and if you wanted to be extra malicious/scientific (they go together often...), make the fruit smear alcoholic and view what happens. I read a report by the HHMI that discussed how flies got drunk. The gene in question determining how fast you get drunk? Cheapdate.

That's an interesting follow up, how would I do that? Just add the salt water and pure water and view the osmosis?

Thanks, alcohol sounds good but it seems too good, for my project I need to give the yeast a chance to fight whatever I'm using, that's why I wanted to use antibacterials.

Sorry I didn't reply earlier to this, I didn't see it. Yes, anything like that. Actually chemicals would be good, if there is a chance that it wouldn't obliterate them, i.e. not kill them so well its not funny; give the yeast a fighting chance. In any case, does anyone know any other potential methods in case I want to try a few ways, besides monitstat and the chemicals? The other question remains, too: would any antibiotic or antibacterial work?

Wouldn't I love that? But that's way beyond the scale of a weekend project. That'd be interesting to do as a long-term project but I'm already entering a science fair so that might overload me. Thanks, I was wondering if yeast-infection medicines would work but I was worrried the "yeast" was slightly different. I'll go pick up some Monistat or similar item, which will be quite a buy considering I'm a guy.

Well if we did then we'd have the associated protein, unless the gene isn't expressed in any human.

I am about to start an experiment to keep me busy this weekend and I need a way to kill of yeast. Obviously there are many extreme ways to do this, bleach, nuclear warhead, hot flame among others, but I would like to use something more specific to organisms such as antibiotics. Would antibiotics be effective against yeast even though yeast is non-pathogenic? I would imagine it would have some effect. In any case, thanks for the help. I hope this project can stave off the Bordom demons and give me some insight into how microbes function.

Wow possbily millions? Well up until recently the axiom in genetics was "one gene, one protein". If there are possibly millions of enzymes alone, then this isn't true. That figure must be newer, probably coming into common knowledge after the one gene one protein bubble was burst. Anyway, good job, it's nice to know how many of those little guys I have working away in me. It's weird we see people as being relatively small (physically) compared to, say, a skyscraper or an elephant, but think of how massive we are on a molecular scale. I'm the size of a universe...even SlimFast couldn't help that