rakuenso

make sure you run SDS-PAGE or some other kind of electrophoresis after the procedure to make sure it has been the target gene of interest has been inserted in the right place

The supreme court is soon to be filled with conservatives, why do think the republican party is workin his butt off to get another evangelist on the board?

Why we need a gene to manufacture vitamin C in the first place? it's abundant as it is. Remember any gene that produces protein which isn't beneficial to the body is considered useless, and would either 1. become silenced or 2. weeded out by natural selection What would happen if our genes allowed us to make Vita. C in today's world? probably nothing, unless you live in Africa or frequently traversed the seas

ADD itself may be a blanket, but the effects of pills for ADD are definately very real

- hunger - sleep - social interaction - social power - sex - curiosity - etc... sounds like a typical ape to me

keep editing your posts. If you refuse to even read the posts of others, let alone implement proper grammar, I don't think you can build much of a case. If you are going to ask a question, ask a question that can be at least somewhat answered or so we know what you are talking about. Also, I wasn't calling all of us idiots. I'm going to stop responding so it doesn't become a flame fest

interspecies breeding is usually rare animals, but not so rare in plants, the process is known as hybridization. However, fertile plants can only be produced if the chromosome set is a multiple of 2, eg tetraploids, diploids. However, if its an odd #, then it is possible for the plants to asexually re-produce (ie kariba weed). As to the exact mechanisms, I've no clue.

someone ban all these idiots also, I refuse to read an article that's not from a peer-reviewed journal especially when it comes to claiming us closer to a dystopian society. Secondly gene cloning has almost no relevance to that link. Thirdly, that link is a perfect example of bastardization of science with a creationist approach. Ok so it's been proven in monkeys, but monkeys have an IQ of about a 5 year old. You seriously can't expect there to be a correlation. Remember that it is not the scientists that ultimately ****s up the world, it is the politicians

well, one reason is that more genes = more energy required for mitosis. but if the alterations exist, natural selection would select on the beneficial alterations just as it selects inherited genetic traits

Just a thought, why is it that we can't change our somatic DNA? I find it strange sometimes that after a few billion years of eukaryotic multi-cellular evolution we haven't been able to modify our somatic genes. does anyone know of organisms that can actually change its somatic DNA half-way through its development aside from mutations?

also gene cloning OF what?

look up embryology, and specifically, eve, hunchback, bicoid and nanos genes responsible for segmentation, it'll clarify some things for you

if you can find an eukaryotic cell with a choloroplast but no mitonchondria, then i'll think otherwise

i'll probably start with a beginner, what do i do if it tries to bite my hands off

Right now I"m a uni, but i'm planning to move in an apartment next year... Something that doesn't have smelly poo and doesn't require uber high maintenance

I guess its mainly to mokele: Where do your get your snakes and other reptiles, local pet stores sells them but my wallet isn't fat enough.

um yes and no... genes are a part of it, but the environment is also responsible. Fetuses can't be developed properly unless they are in the proper womb (which acts as the environment), therefore once again its a nurture vs. nature debate. Post Scriptum: MBoC is a blast to read. You seriously can't get any more monotonous

though viruses would only affect genetic material for eukaryotes if it injected its DNA into gametes (i don't know of any that do, at least not for humans, can anyone provide me with a few examples?)

It's insane to think we can understand billions of years of evolution in 200 years.

Using the same logic as hydroxyls having a terrible leaving group, (why is it a bad leaving group? if the H+ left, then oxygen would be O-, but i read somewhere that electronegative atoms didn't really mind having a negative charge) Mol 3 would be the strongest acid... then how do you determine whether mol II or I is stronger?

cis-trans isomers can't be both be achiral

shoot you're right about the carboanion, oopsies. so for mol III., the carbocation is responsible for the high suspectibility to nucleophilic attack/eliminations? as for the last comment, if its already resonance stabilized, then how does the SP^2 contribute to its acidity?

for Q1 are you asking for chirality centers? For Q2 I think it depends on the isomer, I don't think the optical rotations are the same for a trans-isomers as opposed to a cis-isomer. They are diastereisomers. If the cis-isomer is achiral, then you wouldn't get any optical activity. But if the trans is chiral, then you would. So i guess thats your answer. (Btw is there such a thing as an achiral trans isomer with a chiral cis isomer?)