News Stories

[Urzu 7]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

It is a US spy plane.

What kind of spy plane would light up the sky like that.

[yoropa]

UFO in China has 'military connection': Official

It was later identified as debris from an intercontinental missile launched by the US, Song Huagang, secretary general of the Xinjiang Astronomy Society said.

[Ascaloth]

OMG Aurora!

[Arbitres]

Oh god. The theorists are going to jump on this like maggots on a carcass. But... the evidence is there, I just don't know what to say other then...

Let me pilot it!

[Nosauz]

Originally Posted by justsomeguy

Given that A is in DNA, and U replaces T in RNA, your sequence is not found in nature and might actually very well be patentable, if some sort of use can be found for it.

so mRNA and tRNA's are also patenable eventhough they are derived and transcribed from DNA? K. Technically you can "cure" HIV although actual confirmation at this point is impossible since it's well known that HIV is a very smart virus that uses the bodies antibodies to mask it's own antibodies. Cancer can be "cured" if you surgically remove those cancerous cells, if there was a drug that could methylate the dna sequences that allows the cells to become immortal. Or even a drug that could trigger apoptosis in cancer cells that feature certain genetic markers with cell pathways such as p53.

"Obviously, you can't just snap out a random sequence and patent it. But, again, go back to why we have patents, and ask yourself if it applies."\

Actually you can, ever heard of brac1 or brac2? these are specific key genetic markers for breast cancer and these ARE in fact patented, to actually do research on these genes you must pay a fee to the person who owns the patent... yet I can harvest cancer cells that have these exact genes in vivo for free, and if I were to do any sort of expirment involving the gene i would have to pay.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

OMG Aurora!

The Aurora bomber program was scrapped when the cold war ended. Pilot that without a special G-suit and you get smushed into jam in your cockpit.

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by Nosauz

Instead of survival of the fittest, it's become survival of the richest.

If you're talking straight dog-eat-dog Darwinism, the richest are the fittest, the most able to adapt and survive adverse conditions.

Who's more likely to survive a life-threatening disease, a rich person or a poor one? The answer is quite obvious.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by Urzu 7

Airport Closes After UFO Spotted In China





Look at the top pic. You can see the form of a craft with windows.





http://www.geekologie.com/2010/07/ai...r_ufo_spot.php

Looks like a normal plane photographed with a long exposure to me.

[justsomeguy]

Originally Posted by Nosauz

so mRNA and tRNA's are also patenable eventhough they are derived and transcribed from DNA? K.

They can be patented, but not in the way you think. If a company invents some sort of use for a process that involves mRNA or tRNA, they can patent the process, not the structures themselves. If a company invents a completely new tRNA structure, then the new structure and the process to create it can be patented. Creating a new allele is also patentable, for that specific new allele. Attempting to patent something that exists naturally requires chutzpah, stupid workers at the patent office, and surviving an inevitable lawsuit.

Actually you can, ever heard of brac1 or brac2? these are specific key genetic markers for breast cancer and these ARE in fact patented, to actually do research on these genes you must pay a fee to the person who owns the patent... yet I can harvest cancer cells that have these exact genes in vivo for free, and if I were to do any sort of expirment involving the gene i would have to pay.

Actually, BRCA1 and BRCA2 WERE patented, obviously granted by dimwits at the patent office who knew nothing about the subject. Earlier this year that patent was nullified by the court. If you paid anything, I suggest suing to get all of your money back.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by justsomeguy

Yes, HIV mutates. No, it cannot mutate into infinite different forms. Most individual virus particles just grab whatever DNA it can on its way out of the infected cell. A very large proportion are unable to reproduce further because they grabbed the wrong genes, or detrimental mutations that reduce later generations' ability to infect a cell. There is only so much mutation that HIV can undergo before it becomes something that is not HIV, possibly something relatively benign or easily treatable.

As for cancer, that is not the body making bad copies, it is specific cells making bad copies of cells. Research concentrates on making targeting those cells more precise to minimize destruction of healthy tissue, and whole-body poisoning like chemotherapy is something everybody is trying to move away from.

Just something I would like to ask/point out, not sure if it applies to this :

There is this family of viruses known as the nanoviridae, which are smaller than regular viruses due to their short DNA strands. Is it possible to have one that actually affect human beings?

If so, it has a stronger ability to reproduce further due to it not needing much genetic code. Is it possible for the HIV to reproduce itself into that strain?

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

If you're talking straight dog-eat-dog Darwinism, the richest are the fittest, the most able to adapt and survive adverse conditions.

Who's more likely to survive a life-threatening disease, a rich person or a poor one? The answer is quite obvious.

Except that Darwinism isn't about the individual, its about species. The ultra rich often misuse evolutionary sound bites to justify their actions. It could easily be argued that the actions of the rich are counter-productive to the survival of the species because of the hyper-concentration of capital and the destruction of common community resources. Just sayin' ...

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Except that Darwinism isn't about the individual, its about species. The ultra rich often misuse evolutionary sound bites to justify their actions. It could easily be argued that the actions of the rich are counter-productive to the survival of the species because of the hyper-concentration of capital and the destruction of common community resources. Just sayin' ...

Those people don't possess something called "marketing skills" for nothing. To sell something, even a length of words for justification, there are something things to be left out in order to sway people to your side.

Good to know that there is someone else who sees that "Darwinism" and "Individualism" are exclusive of "selfishness".

[justsomeguy]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Just something I would like to ask/point out, not sure if it applies to this :

There is this family of viruses known as the nanoviridae, which are smaller than regular viruses due to their short DNA strands. Is it possible to have one that actually affect human beings?

If so, it has a stronger ability to reproduce further due to it not needing much genetic code. Is it possible for the HIV to reproduce itself into that strain?

It wouldn't be HIV anymore. The nanoviruses are DNA viruses, while HIV is an RNA virus that must convert to double-stranded DNA before reproducing. HIV is a larger than normal retrovirus (120nm diameter), and I don't see how it can retain its nature if shrunk down to the 20nm size of nanoviruses.

The nanoviruses seem to infect plants only, since those lack the more advanced and adaptive immune systems of animals. Shorter DNA would mean less genes, less ability to mutate while remaining viable, etc, and so is not directly related to reproductive ability. I would imagine that nanovirus's simplistic nature would get them killed upon infecting a human.

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Except that Darwinism isn't about the individual, its about species. The ultra rich often misuse evolutionary sound bites to justify their actions. It could easily be argued that the actions of the rich are counter-productive to the survival of the species because of the hyper-concentration of capital and the destruction of common community resources. Just sayin' ...

Unless the ultra rich start organizing harems comparable in size to those of the Chinese emperors of hundreds of years ago...

[Joojoobees]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

Unless the ultra rich start organizing harems comparable in size to those of the Chinese emperors of hundreds of years ago...

Are you excluding Tiger Woods?

[Nosauz]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Except that Darwinism isn't about the individual, its about species. The ultra rich often misuse evolutionary sound bites to justify their actions. It could easily be argued that the actions of the rich are counter-productive to the survival of the species because of the hyper-concentration of capital and the destruction of common community resources. Just sayin' ...

Who truly cares about the tragedy of the commons?

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by Nosauz

Who truly cares about the tragedy of the commons?

Who sacrifices diversity (a diverse base of commons)... will reduce choices in branching... will more likely end up in an evolutionary dead end. All it comes down to is chance. And you increase the chance of finding successful branches .. with high diversity.

[Nosauz]

Except from an evolutionary standpoint wealth helps mitigate genetic defects? Those wealthy can deal with their genetic defaults with money and technology and from an evolutionary standpoint they are the "weak" branches.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Nosauz

Except from an evolutionary standpoint wealth helps mitigate genetic defects? Those wealthy can deal with their genetic defaults with money and technology and from an evolutionary standpoint they are the "weak" branches.

a defect is only a defect if it is detrimental to the viability of host passing on said defect.

however if said defect is not detrimental to the host's genetic viability then it is not a defect.

take sickle cell, it is defect in most part of world but in malaria country it is actually a advantage to have sickle cell.

[MeoTwister5]

First and foremost to call a something a "biological defect" is completely subject in reference to climate, environment, relative effects on biological systems etc. There is no such thing as an absolute defect because what is defective today may be an advantage a hundred years from now.

To expound of Xellos' explanation on Sickle Cell Anemia, it is actually a very good representation of the concept of how a genetic defect may be an advantage. HbS has a glutamate substitution for valine at position 6 of the Beta-globulin chain due to single point mutations of the gene, which results in hemoglobin to form rigid polymer structures rather than its loose conformation that allows for better. At low oxygen saturation, the molecule aggregates and precipitates, causing the sickling of RBCs that both cause tearing of the cell and shearing of the vascular walls on close contact.

Malarial species are erythrocytic for reproduction inside the human host. They require a metabolically working RBC to be able to properly form gametocytes. HbS and other RBC diseases such as G6PD and the forms of Thalassemia prevents proper gametocyte formation, giving partialimmunity to Malarial diseases. It's even been posited that it's possible certain forms of RBC mutations may have even been induced as a response against Malarial infection.

Might as well add that there are currently no nanoviridae known to infect humans. The smallest appreciable human infecting virus is parvovirus B19. nanoviridae are exclusively plant-infecting.