Psycho

The proximal promoter is where transcription factors bind helping activation this is further away from the start codon around -250, I think you are thinking it is where the ribonuclease complex binds, the -35 region, but this is actually called the core promoter. The reason E isn't true is because they can also be repressors.

Well the highest temperature any known hyperthermophlic archaea can survive in is 121 degrees so any water above that. (by current knowledge) Also psychrophiles have been found growing in salt veins in arctic ice so subzero liquid temperatures aren't a problem either. Fungi was found growing in the Chernobyl reactor core so even radiation isn't a foolproof deterrent. The main problem for life would be if a water source rapidly changed temperature frequently. Protein structures have a preferred optimum temperature so couldn't easily adapt and membranes have to become specialised above 60 degrees.

Well considering you have just bumped a topic from 7 years ago maybe you should have just mentioned it then.

This is true but if you make a statement like the former you clearly have completely missed the whole idea of the concept so no amount of information will help, what he actually needs is a good analogy.

A really doubt a decent pop science book comes out everyday so that must just be linking to rubbish most days.

Have you even tried to answer it, I found the answer quicker than I could have typed that out.

That wasn't really the point of my post.

I happen to agree with you about discovering the meaning of thing and how they work and why they work actually makes them far more interesting, I mean the reality of what happens in a plant everyday is amazing. I have hi-lighted your final ending statement for a philosophical purpose more than a scientific one, as it is most likely one of the features of the confusion with evolution. Nature doesn't exist and in its non-existance isn't aiming to accomplish anything, mutations occur and are selected for, survival is accomplished but that was never the aim of the mutation, the mutation didn't have an aim. What is forgotten by most laymen in their concept of evolution is that many mutations occur that aren't selected for or just come along for the ride and don't advantage and more importantly disadvantage the organism, later in the species development they may by lost or suddenly become an extremely important mutation (due to environmental changes), but probably not, they will just sit there and have no effect.

Seriously!? That is what that means, the only reason you haven't miss represented data here is if you have never read a study on it and then it is just defined as ignorance and lying, but I thought I would give you the benefit of the doubt. That quote specifies that Vitamin B has an impact and Omega-3's may also have a lesser impact, by implications of answering Appolinaria questions about memory in a previous post. This is untrue by the definition of each group chemicals having molecules of different unrelated function to each other let alone neurological function, which is especially important to note as Omega-3 fatty acids without neurological affects are sold as ones with them to the general public.

Maybe you should look up the definition of primary some time. There are studies that show that decreased rates of Helicobacter pylori colonization has been linked to increased levels of asthma in urban populations. The hygiene hypothesis has many problems with it, mainly that it doesn't correlate with the data. It hasn't seriously been accepted as a reasoning fpr the cause of increased asthma rates for a long time.

Seriously, you wrote a book!? What you have fundamentally said in that quote is that facts and reality are wrong. The statement clearly contradicts itself and if believed as written is a proof of insanity.

By defining other effects of the chemicals in the brain and nervous system irrelevant to the topic the assertion is implicit. What you did is misrepresent data, by stating that all of the Vitamin B and Omega-3 fatty acids have neurological effects which isn't true and then ignored the fact you had done this by nitpicking B1, B3, B6 and B12 out of a group of 8, which are only grouped due to confusion in the past and in no way chemically. Also ignored was known research which shows the effects of arachidonic acid and docosahexanemoic acid are far more prevalent than the effects of other omega-3 fatty acids such as alpha-linolenic acid, once again joining together groups of chemicals that have different effects some having none at all. Your assertions were incorrect and not in keeping with the current ideas that the level research has achieved, there is little evidence that these chemicals have shown neurological enhancement in neurologically healthy human subjects with a balanced diet, the only time it has been prevalent is in cases of deficiency or in the old; where it could just as easily be due to changes in metabolic pathways as deficiency.

Really kind of ironic, no one at any point has asserted that any of the chemicals under discussion aren't in the brain or have no affect on it, what we have been say is that placing them in excess into the system has no affect on underlying brain function, which is vastly different from what any of your papers which say it has an affect on brain function in people with impaired memory, with little even mentioned into the underlying reasoning of why. So yes if you are malnourished these supplements will help, the same way Vitamin A will stop you going blind, however eating a gram of vitamin A a day isn't going to give you X-ray vision, it will give you a headache and make you sick. It would be a major contributing factor, though the specific ability to remember doesn't make you intelligent, the ability to make connections between things therefore understanding the bigger picture does and that requires you to remember many different ideas. . You would have to find the study, but without reading it it seems like a logical assertion, if you are under pressure to do something or get away from it the mind would be distracted from other processes as they seem less important. They don't make you more intelligent, your level of intelligence is exactly the same until you choose to put more information into the system and then you may remember more of that information than if you had a deficiency in DHA and arachidonic acid, however it has been shown that short term supplementation with these fatty acids doesn't actually change the proportional levels of them in young adult humans, but over a six month period more affect was shown. The study on mice shows that originally the levels of DHA and AA are down regulated, this could be due to deficiency of the precursor or levels of anabolism of the fatty acid in the first place that doesn't occur in humans or only in the elderly. The only thing DHA and AA have been shown to do is to keep you at optimum performance, which in some maybe a increase in memory but only due to incorrect dietary intake in the first place. This is forgetting that there are other omega-3 fatty acids that have little effect, hence using the term omega-3 fatty acids is incorrect.

Ok, if this is true explain to me your example in terms of a star or iron fillings and a magnet, barring in mind the description below of your example. An amoeba binds a foreign organism through its specific outer membrane proteins (most likely only binding glycosolated phospholipids), these pass the signal most likely through dimerisation or by protein conformational change to the cytoplasm (therefore through an impermeable layer), this therefore leads to a kinase cascade being activated (consisting of multiple proteins with reversible modifications causing activation or repression) leading to changes in the cytoskeleton of the amoeba to start engulfing the said organism and activating gene expression within the nucleus to up-regulate the transcription on mRNA relating to phospholipid production, there will also be further protein localisation at the distal edge of the incoming vesicle to stop cellular rupture when the vesicle is fully engulfed and breaks away from the outer membrane. Or did you just thing it magically ended up inside, they don't "do" swallowing organisms they selectively choose which organisms to engulf and activate cellular pathways to make it possible.

The question can't be answered anyway without more information, autotrophs and heterotrophs gain these from vastly different sources.

I didn't say omega 3 fatty acids have no positive affect neither did PhDwannabe, I said that certain ones don't, which is well documented, PhDwannabe said that there isn't enough conclusive evidence to come to the conclusion that they have useful affects. As to why the media and governments miss represents data, it is normally to make sales or get votes. The facts are that certain fatty acids have been shown to be in the brain such as docosahexaneoic acid this has an anti-inflammatory property in cardiovascular disease, so it is very unlikely to be bad for you and many people don't get a high enough proportion against other fatty acids in their diet in comparisons to proportions in the brain, whether this is relevant still isn't known but current research says it isn't in the short term. But the actual neurological effects of DHA aren't truly understood at the physiological level let alone the molecular one.

I fail to see the problem, it is well referenced. If you are looking to answer the specific question "What are the genetic differences between Chimps and Humans?" it's a useful source, the actual problem with it is that it is 8 years old and therefore misses out on all the new data. Of course if you wanted to answer the question "How similar are the Genetics of Chimps and Humans?" then it is useless as a stand alone source, but you should never use one source of information anyway.

Except on Friday when everyone turns up to work drunk.

Lol, I think that kind of proved our point, "Vitamin B" is actually 8 different substances that have different functions, where as Omega-3's are a group of fatty acids some which have been shown to have no positive neurological effects at all, but ironically the "inactive" ones are still sold to consumers as working chemicals as they are too lazy to look up what they put in their mouths. But if that is all it takes to get +1 these days.

Not really, as given the law of large numbers it is going to happen that a mutation will occur that benefits the plant in some way, one simpler example is colour change, bees are attracted to UV and plants have very bright flowers within the UV, it is quite easy to see how a plant accidentally gains a colour change is therefore bees are more attracted to it over others so more versions of that gene are passed on. Plants don't receive any information they just die if they have bad traits (with their genes) and live on with good traits, therefore a system full of good traits prevails.

Not really if you have proper health insurance you will be covered and it has been known for sometime that HIV serum titres are practically zero if the correct medication is taken.

When telomeres run out the cell can no longer divide however different animal species loose telomere length at different rates with some even been able to increase their telomere length, this is what most of the research is into how to increase telomere length, stop reduction or in the case of cancer stop immortality. Mitochondrial DNA is completely different for the rest of human DNA and doesn't divide with cell division and isn't stored in the nucleus, the main source of information that can be gain from it is genetic divergence due to a constant rate of mutation occurring and no mixing of genes. DNA linage is just the same thing but via the nuclear DNA, if you want to follow male linage in organisms this is one of the only way, it is also useful for tracking a certain gene through a population. Retrovirus input just happens, I don't really see what your issue is, it doesn't really relate to the other topics unless you were trying to follow retrovirus history. I fail to see the complexity they are different things and that is how it is, would you think it odd that artists paint in red, yellow and blue, painting would be far easier if you just didn't use blue, it would also rather defeat the point as your picture wouldn't represent what you were painting.

No, amoebas follow chemical signatures and move towards them and then actively change their molecular pathways to endocytose other organisms. The actual equivalent example you are looking for is micelles absorbing other phospholipids, these are what make cell membranes but are not classed as alive on their own without other cellular structures.

Really, does that actually work, it seems unlikely due to the amount of contact points been far more varied between the percentages of CG and AT pairing due to them having different bond numbers, this would have far greater effect on the strength of bonding of DNA strands, hence promoter regions of a large percentage of eukaryotic genes having TATTA boxes, as this affect allows easier DNA melting in the ribosomal complex. If you already had the sequence then you might as well compare the DNA sequences using bioinformatics, which is how they actually get the percentage figures. What has been missed in this whole concept is what DNA is, human DNA consists of 3 billion base pairs so a 1% differences is 30 million individual differences. Now taking into account that only 1.5% of those 3 billion bases code for proteins that is 45 million exonic bases, then they are only 98.5% similar so that means there is 675000 differences in only around 23,000 genes. That is equivalent to an average of 29.35 different base pairs per gene. Then you have to take into account that a single mutation within a gene can completely inactive it, so you see how different humans and chimps really are. In reality most of those mutations won't have much affect at all, however you only need 1/300 to and 10% of the genes in humans suddenly have radically altered function to there homologue in chimps. But you can also use this mutation rate to see how long species diverged from each other as it tends to happen at a fairly constant rate so that is how you can find common ancestors to species.

If he can molecularly control scar tissue it would help humanity far more than anything else proposed.