CharonY

Eh, the context is totally wrong. Evolution is about changes in allele frequency. This cannot happen on an individual level (esp. considering that all cells share the same genome).

Before we delve deeper in the matter what type of preventive medicine do we want to discuss here. The breast cancer example (also prostate for that matter) are cases of diagnostic scans and would not generally be included as preventive medicine. Once we got that we can check whether studies have been conducted for any given preventive recommendation and then we can assess whether they are useful or not. The next question would then be (in case they are helpful) what population effects it has. Then we can discuss whether above mentioned non-preventable diseases are really of overwhelming concern so that preventing other diseases is simply not worth it (though we would have to define a metric as e.g. cost for it first). Alternatively we can blame the medical profession as well as biomedical researchers and come up with better ideas.

1) regulatory sequences are outside the coding sequence. Each mRNA is preceded by a an untranslated region and is generally followed by another one. Thus knowing the gene sequence does not provide information on the initiation complex. 2) The Kozak sequence is the consensus binding site for the eukaryotic ribsome complex. 3) I mistyped I meant cytoplasmic ribosomes, of course, not mitochondria. Sorry for the confusion.

This is a general problem and sometimes even done out of ignorance. The media is full of it and usually the most dramatic spin gets the most attention.

You have not integrated the second hint. Or think about this: are cdc mutant completely unable to grow? Regardless of the condition? Moved to homework.

Hint:1: were the cells wild-type or mutants before you exposed them to UV? Hint 2: cdc mutants are generally temperature sensitive.

Despite being off-topic I like to add another finer point on the ban on Hitler's book in Germany, as it is often misunderstood (both within, as well as outside Germany). In short: it is not banned. Possession is legal,and you can legal sell original prints. However, the copyright belong to the state of Bavaria. I.e. no one else is allowed to reprint it and Bavaria doesn't grant anyone those rights nor does it print them. However, according to German laws these copyrights are only valid 70 years after the death of the author (IIRC) after which reprints become legal.

Well. coming from the "omics" side I have to add that right now we need to start making sense of the data rather than piling up on it. A serious is issue that many coming into the omic field try to do is non-hyptothesis driven proteomics or transcriptomics analyses (I admit that a decade or so back I did the very same). When I give talk how to use the omics toolbox I usually make an opening statement like "don't get too excited, if you want answers". Rather unfortunately many PIs see the methodologies little more than a paper making stint. Anyway, just needed to rant a bit.

First of all ribosomes translate and do not transcribe.The initiation of translation is different in pro- and eukaryotes. Most notably the ribosome binding sequence on the mRNA is different. The famous Shine-Dalgarno and Kozak sequences, respectively. This is important basics (if it does not tell you anything, grab a textbook now, also ). Regarding gcl the last time I heard about it was already a few years back, but from what I recall the evidence was not fully on the side of translation by mitochondrial ribosomes. I remember basically two explanations. A) presence of cis regulatory sequences that allow the translation, or in fact translation by cytoplasmic mitochondria.

Eh, it is neither spreading of DNA nor a fungus, but an accumulation of more or less diverse mutations that result in the deregulation of the growth and cell cycle control of the cell. The result is a cell that proliferates unchecked. What that guy proposes flies in the face of the current knowledge on cancer. I did not watch the video as the comments from someone who did were enough to convince me that watching it would melt my brain: Link Not to mention that bicarbonate would not do much to most fungi. For more, another link.

Well the next gen and the soon coming next-next gen sequencers are technically interesting. However, for scientific advancement we still need to figure out what to do with the info. If we are at that point is going to be a significant advancement. At this point we are more successful in finding out that certain approaches do not work If you want to know where the cost decrease came from- mostly from pyrosequencers as the 454 or solexa.

Denitrification does not produce CO2 per se, but the oxidation of an organic electron donor might (as with any other form of aerobic or anaerobic respiration). As mentioned, the release of CO2 is the result of microbial decomposition of the organic plant material.

I have no idea what your point is. Obviously single-celled organisms can do (and did) just fine by themselves. Also in the absence of oxygen.

Bacteria get there. When you isolate DNA from a body fluid you also isolate theirs.

I am not sure about the details about the way income would be taxed and whether her AIG would thus fall under this bracket, but let us for now assume (or try to get to the details of taxation, if you are interested later on) that a total of 900,000 individuals with a business income would have an increase of taxes to pre-Bush times. This could be interesting for you. Regardless whether the taxable income of your wife is more than 250,000 (it would be significantly higher than the gross income, of course) it still means that over 90% of business are unaffected. As such iNow's point stands. I.e. it is clear that the majority of businesses are not affected. From what I see, the basic idea is to get rid of the tax cuts for the top and give those below them a sweet spot to survive. Link. The question is how negative the effects are really to be and how much not having that tax revenue may hurt. That is, if the revenue is used to support small businesses or is used in a somewhat prudent manner.

In this regard THIS is rather interesting. This indicates that those being taxed are also those with the biggest money on their side. From the OP I am not sure whether paying a bit more in taxes would suddenly put these business in a tight spot, or rather the individuals owning these companies. Edit: I think Obama did focus in his campaign on not raising taxes for anyone with an income less than 250k. So maintaining parts of the tax cuts should not come as a surprise. Well, maybe with him being a politician it should.

That is why Swansont said: (my bold).A theory is not thrown out without a context.

An interesting paper about how pharma companies sneak marketing aspects into reviews and commentaries. Normally the FDA regulates what can be said about a drug in marketing. However in this report at least one company has been shown to circumvent that by ghostwriting articles that are designed to market their products. Needless to say this is an extremely unethical on so many levels (including also unethical treatment of authorship). Link

Photosynthesis consists of two uncoupled reaction. The first one delivering the energy for the second. Respiration is functionally equivalent to the first part of photosynthesis (as both create proton gradients to drive ATP generation).

I belong to those that think that "most evolved" does not make sense. One has to keep in mind that for a long time in our history we all were bacteria. I.e. event that happened to them also happened to us early in our history. None of the proposed criteria are actually useful as for 1) one has to have the ur-genome with which one would have to compare anything that we do not have 2) is outright wrong as evolution does not act on anything, but it is the process during which a defined gene pool changes its composition (i.e. genetic drift, natural selection etc. are the actors) and 3) only makes sense either within a gene pool or ecological niche (i.e. in a direct competitive situation).

More like unavoidable accuracy in the experimental setup. The individualized part makes it hard as it introduces all kinds of variables including e.g. the abilities of the respective acupuncturists.

There are a lot of factors, not all of which are understood. The core is of course, regulation on various levels. This includes for instance the production of certain growth factors. The above mentioned reversal is based on the overexpression of certain growth factors in skin cells thus resulting in cells that are similar, but not identical to stem cells. There are of course much regulatory elements involved, but it is such a complex field that a short post could not do it any justice (not to mention outside of my specialty). If interested I would consider checking out books about developmental biology.

It sure does. It means that the DNA is not freely floating around in blood and urine.To be precise, a limited amount should be during infection, however they do usually are not stable outside a cellular environment.

This is wrong. The light reaction fulfills similar function as respiration. CO2 fixation is decoupled from respiration. Photosynthesis came later as initially all bacteria used anaerobic respiration. In fact, the first mass extinction was caused by the advent of photosynthesis and the resulting rise of oxygen in the atmosphere. As such it is incorrect to assume that it was a direction towards this end. Only after O2 arose organisms developed means to deal with it and ultimately benefit from it.

It is not necessarily so that evolution selects for simplicity. In fact bacteria are able to settle specific niches that eukaryotes cannot because they got a more complex metabolic abilities, which eukaryotes lost during their development. On the other hand eukaroytes have created new ecological niches. In fact, most eukaryotes represent ecological niches for bacteria. But the overall point is accurate. Once a certain evolutionary path has been started it is possible that for whatever reasons there is a pressure towards complexity in certain branches to remain competitive. It is highly dependent on the habitat and the ecological niches. Parasites, for instance tend to lose traits that they required for free-living survival. In fact, the authors of the paper made the very point that it is not universal.