flexbusterman

so why did more complex life arise after the swith to dna from rna? the reason obviously is that dna is more stable inthe enviornment. a more profound question is what came first...the prtein or the rna? if you believe in a primordial soup, for which there is no evidence for, how did the rna come to code for protein? these are questions i would like to have seen anwered in my lifetime!

the previous few post are pretty funny, but isnt the original question referring to the stuff found inside living cells and not to commercial products??:stupid:

hast du eine Vogel? :lame:

we would become inert masses of course. some of us already have

ok so since no one likes the idea, then how do explain the giant industry of shock video and websites. i am sure everyone has heard of the series traces of death and has seen the rotten.com webstie. actually, i would have to say it seems to be simply a matter of the individuals background, though that can only be a partial explaination of the feelings evoked by the viewing of such gore. what makes people not entirely predictable is that anomaly... choice, and its choice that makes anyones argument over why we do things obsolete, dontcha think? BUT i am a proponent of evolutionary instincts, of which choice is not a part, and so i would like to commend cheetah on the noteworthy observation:) but who am i to be commending people anyway?

there was an article that i read in nature that actually made its way to yahoo news...a research group hypothesizes that a key event that led to homo sapiens developing a brain of relatively great size, capable of greater cognitive function, was a mutation in a gene that is involved in the determination of the size of the mandible. accordingly, a smaller jaw meant less muscle constraint on the skull, allowing for growth and viola...here we are 2.4 million years later:D sorry for going a little off track but its late:)

i was reading the posts...RNA does form double strands, actually these are becoming more and more important regarding the understanding of our evolution (complex RNA structures can take on a variety of functions traditionally assigned to proteins). actually, i am working with something that seems to suggest that the 3' end of translated RNA can have an autoregulatory function on that species of RNA but i have yet to begin work on this project. it has been shown that the untranslated region upstream of promoters can have a similar effect on autogenous RNA so why not the translated acid corresponding to the C' of the protein???

this isnt odd...all that has to happen for something like this to occur is a mutation in the cell resonsible for secreting the keratin at the base of the hair follicle. this is fairly common so the number of mutaions is probably one...all of the cells descendents would carry the same mutation so of course the hair would persist.

ok ive lost track to what the original post stated...but of course it is entirely possible to make a "new" human...and do u really think this hasnt been done??? we know lots of critical genes involved in a vast range of biological processes...from the regulation of tissue differentiation (did you know that a gene crucial for the digitation of fingers and toes is also invovled in the development of the chambers of the heart?) to those responsible for keeping DNA in good shape over time...and more recently, researchers seem to have identified genes that are turned on during the aging process (UC Riverside). my point is, we humans have a lot of facts under our belt...that means power. government of course has to keep any kind of power in check, so that chaos doesnt ensue, but other governments, as in china, do not view science as knowledge for the people...rather they see it as for their own benefit. i am not saying ive seen definitive proof that they have engineered a super human or some kind of teenage mutant ninja turtle (), all i am saying is that if someone wanted to do something like that, i would guess china the place to do it! there also is no real point to create some kind of new human unless it's going to be used for something mere mortals arent capable. why alter the human genome if we havent even figured out how to eliminate proviral infections such as in AIDS, or even cure the common cold. there is a great deal of research that SHOULD be done for the benifit of all mankind, of course this mankind is as we know it now, so why create something new to deal with???

are you trying to get someone to do your homework????

this is a topic that can't really be answered...i mean the 1st post askd if it was right or wrong...obviously everyone will have their own opinion...i give this a giant :lame: