mortonman1

Ok all of that made sense luckily, even though I don't have much knowledge of it. i was wondering however, that if the gp41 and/or gp120 proteins changed, that would reduce efficiency of getting into host cell?

Okay, so somehow the DNA sets itself up to mutate, without making mistakes in other areas besides glycoproteins. How? and what changes? please be specific

I don't know! ha Thats what i want to know. what I know is that glycoproteins change, most like gp41 and gp120. I know not much more

how does a HiV virus mutate. Im not asking what it mutates, only how. Any answers are fine with me, including what happens, what changes, but try to stick to how. Thanks guys. all answers appreciated

For me, I explain free will by explaining what it isn't. it isn't when God chooses every action we take, thus that would make us puppets. So free will is just our ability to think, reason and decide actions to take.

There is good book called Mere Christianity by C.S. lewis, that in the first 2 chapters talks about exactly what your asking. He says that there is a moral law within all humans(Law of decent behavior) and that there is no way to deny it. he says that we would not no bad, if we did not know good from birth. Almost like calling a bent line "bent" because we have seen a 'strait" line before. If one had never seen the strait line, than he/she would not know bent

Are you asking what is the typical concentrations? or how do the T-cells get there? i only know the answer to the how, which has to do with chemokines and cytokines moving the cells by chemotaxis. (im pretty sure you know this, but just in case that was your question) Good luck!

shoot! ok im new to this so im working on it. sorry. so i meant the receptor. or the TCR to be specific, since im talking about a T-cell. right?

ok. Im still confused about CD's. what im saying above is the there are proteins(antigens) that bind to other proteins(antibodies) and the antigens bind to the epitope. so can we make an antigen that has one side for binding to an antibody, and on the other side of the antigen, have an antibody. so it would be a huge protein, but it would allow for antigens to bind to an antigen. the advantage in this is making the antigen reception site code for whatever antigen we want. make sense? still weird probably. i need to draw it.

or he gets into a bar fight and eats someone inside out(parasite/virus)! then the police come(immune system).

Hi everyone. So my last post on here was about exchanging CD3 molecules from delta T-cells to alpha. Clearly this is really stupid since all T-cells have CD3 and then they also have CD4 and CD8(correct me if Im wrong). So more or less I want to first apologize for that. The reason im posting is a new idea. I was wondering if one can manufacture an antigen to bind to an antibody, but on the other side of the antigen(the side not attached to the antibody) have a second epitope for other antigens to bind. This way we can manually select T-cells and B-cells to code for what we want. This specifically would be for HIV. Thanks for replies

Hey man, any thinking is good thinking in my opinion. Your theory isn't bad, it all has to start somewhere. In my opinion your right. I am in the same position as you however, I am no scientist, just a kid with huge ambitions about knowledge. I think that there is negative mass in black holes attracting mass, but black holes aren't immortal, and will end once equilibrium of mass is equated. i think it's relatively ridiculous to postulate any factual theories on black holes, since we can't get close to them, and we aren't close to any anyways-- if we were we'd die. i think? So ya. I am sure others have their opinions too, but im expressing mine, as that is what you wanted

ok thanks. ill do my research.

perfect answer thank you. Now answer my question about the orgin of the universe. "This little theory led me to think that the orgin of the universe could have been from to small particles that gained infinite potential gravitational energy because they were the only two particles in the universe, and they thus collided, creating the big bang. according to newtons universal gravitational constant, this is merely impossible, but he didn't take into account any theoretical universes with no other matter or masses around."

O alright. i see kinda what you mean. Well thank you