GDG

It can indeed. In fact, this is what the biotechnology industry started with. See, e.g., Humulin, which IIRC was Genentech's first product. Not everything can be produced in bacteria. Other choices include yeast, insect cells (using baculovirus expression systems), and animal cells (e.g., CHO).

Happy to help

I didn't know that they could give negative reputation points

You can get a great number of terrific podcasts on medical topics. Go to the podcast section in iTunes, and search for whatever interests you. Many of the major science journals have their own weekly (or less than weekly) podcasts: Science Nature (see also Nature's ChemPod and NeuroPod) Nature Neurology (NeuroPod) The Lancet Microbiology Bytes The Brain Science Podcast Scientific American All in the Mind (Radio National Australia) In addition, many universities now post lectures (and some -- entire classes): Yale Johns Hopkins Harvard Stanford St. Scholastica (in iTunes: check out Dr. C's lectures on physiology) And then there's these -- (not always medicine, but always interesting): New York Academy of Sciences (Science & the City) Big Ideas The Commonwealth Club RadioLab I'm sure I must have forgotton a few...

It can be permanent, but in other cases it is temporary. The Merck Manual indicates that salicylates (like overdosing on aspirin) can cause temporary tinnitus. It doesn't mention ibuprofen specifically, but my guess is that it would behave more like aspirin than most of the other drugs listed (i.e., temporary, rather than permanent).

As long as it isn't mucormycosis (), you will probably be fine.

My alma mater was Harvey Mudd College, generally considered one of the best engineering colleges. At the time I attended, the American Chemical Society rated its chemistry program the best in the country. It has a student body of <800, which means that you will actually meet and talk with your professors (not just teaching assistants). Don't give up on private schools too soon: most have some form of financial aid available. HMC says that 83% of its students receive financial aid, from $100 up to full tuition/room/board. Best of luck!

According to Wikipedia,

I think you are thinking of interferon, although this is a protein instead of an acid. Viral infection induces the expression of interferon, which attempts to down-regulate viral expression, and prepares neighboring cells to combat infection.

Try having a look at this field guide: you may be able to identify what you're seeing.

Here's how it works: there are 64 possible codons (4 bases in each of 3 positions in the codon), and 20 common amino acids (there are a few other amino acids, but they are mainly made by post-translational modifications of the "main 20"). Three of the possible 64 codons are "stop" codons, which do not encode an amino acid (usually: there are a few exceptions here too). The number of different codons for each amino acid is not distributed evenly: some amino acids have only one possible codon (e.g., Met -- ATG, AND TRP -- TGG), while others have up to six (e.g., Leu, with TTA, TTG, CTT, CTC, CTA, and CTG). Most have 2 or 4 possible codons. For each amino acid, there is at least one tRNA. Some tRNA molecules can "recognize" or hybridize to more than one different codon (up to 4), but all of those codons will still encode the same amino acid. In the case of tRNAs that hybridize to more than one different codon, the codons will differ only in the 3rd position. For example, there could be only one Proline ("Pro") tRNA, which could pair with CCX (X being any of the 4 bases). For each amino acid, there is one enzyme that attaches that amino acid to each of the tRNAs that pair to codons for that amino acid. Thus, you have 20 amino acids; 20 aminoacyl tRNA synthetase enzymes; between 20 and 61 tRNAs; and 64 possible codons. Different species have different codon "preferences", which means that, for example, in species A you would find most Pro codons are CCA or CCC, while in species B you would find that most Pro codons are CCG or CCT. I suspect that all tRNAs are used in every cell in an organism, even though some are more abundant. tRNAs are probably regulated pretty much the same way as every other protein and RNA in the cell: inducers and inhibitors, etc. IIRC, there are a few cases in which a "rare" tRNA is required, and the relative scarcity of that tRNA regulates the speed with which the corresponding protein is made.

Unfortunately, you're still not listening. The internet is full of misinformation as well as information. If you rely on sites like those you listed, you are never going to learn any real science. Both are fairly incredible concatenations of misinformation and misapplication of science. For example, the suggestion that evolution is contrary to the laws of thermodynamics displays a misunderstanding (or worse, a deliberate mischaracterization) of each. The entropy of a closed system increases, but living organisms are not closed systems. Living organisms actually use quite a bit of energy (and create quite a bit of entropy in their surroundings) to keep themselves ordered. The law of entropy does not in any way prevent complicated creatures from evolving. Obviously, we cannot force you to "believe" in evolution. All we can do is prove that every one of your arguments is invalid, and that there are no counterexamples to evolution. If you did have a counterexample, we would listen. So far, though (and this subject has been debated endlessly, by people just as uninformed but certain as you), nobody has come up with one.

According to Wikipedia, brain size is increasing. However, the flaw in the premise is to assume that cranial volume correlates with intelligence. It does not. IQ appears to vary with the amount of gray matter (as opposed to white matter) in the brain, and its distribution, and that only about 6% of the gray matter is critical to IQ. Cortical structure appears to be a more relevant measure.

Your control in this case is probably the baseline temperature readings of the subjects, before treatment. Technically, a control group would not be exposed to any change in temperature over time, and you would then see how much their body temps varied (in the absence of environmental variation).

The mother can pass antibodies through the placenta in the bloodstream, and also in the milk post-partum. However, antibodies only persist in the bloodstream for a few weeks. Unfortunately, it does not operate as a cross-generational vaccination.

It is possible to have multiple food allergies, but the literature says that it is very, very rare. On the other hand, asparagus can cause nausea and vomiting if eaten uncooked. Perhaps you're just not cooking it long enough?

The effects of HFCS are currently controversial. K.L. Stanhope and P.J. Havel, Am J Clin Nutrit (2008) 88(6):1733S-37S reported that: However, in another study, Stanhope et al. Am J Clin Nutrit (2008) 87(5):1194-203 reported that: I'm guessing that when we evolved as a species, sweet fruits were (a) nutritious for us and good to eat, and (b) not available in unlimited supply. My hypothesis is that we evolved to enjoy sweet foods (have you ever seen a child refuse candy?), but unfortunately did not evolve a limiting mechanism.

Feed them Of course, what to feed them depends on what you are trying to grow...

If you are supporting ID or creationism, you are arguing religion. There is no scientific basis for ID or creationism. Rejecting evolution because "it couldn't possibly produce something as complicated as humans" just shows that you do not yet understand evolution or biology. Nobody knows all the answers, and no scientist claims to. As for understanding the mysteries of the universe, that's why most of us are interested in science. You are not making any progress in that direction if you just reject established science. As scientists, we do accept things that can be proven. We are open minded because we will consider relevant evidence (although do not be surprised if we scrutinize your evidence pretty closely), and change theories to accommodate the data. It is the close minded person who rejects things because they don't understand, and makes no attempt to understand.

Sure it is. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the 1 mutation per billion bases was correct. You have about 3 billion bases in your genome, so could have about 3 mutations per cell. It is not true that most mutations are deleterious: most have no effect at all. Many will result is some change, not significant enough to cause cell death. The mutation need not confer any benefit today, either: if that phenotype is present in the population, there is some possibility that the environment will change in a way that benefits those individuals having that phenotype. Look at it this way: if you play the lottery every minute for 3 billion years, how many times will you win? Now, multiply that by the number of living organisms. Cars, boats, and planes have purposes because they are designed by humans for particular functions. The only "true purpose" of lions is to make more lions: hunting is just one of the things they do that furthers that.

I'm curious if you have any scientific support for that, or even a description of the toxins involved. As for allergies, the hygiene hypothesis is that too much cleaning (i.e., not enough exposure to dirt and bacteria) is what causes allergies...

I'm not an expert in physics, but I thought that special rel was not invalidated by general rel, only expanded. My recollection of special rel is that it shows that events that are simultaneous in one reference frame may not be simultaneous in a different reference frame; thus, one cannot define a preferred reference frame. If one cannot establish simultaneity, I don't see how one can establish a universal time coordinate. Never had general rel: does it undo everything that special rel proved?

Zero point energy is the energy remaining when a system is in its lowest energy state. Also referred to as "vacuum energy". Not to be confused with the rest mass of a particle. AFAIK, ZPE should have been a feature of the universe since its inception, although it probably would have been difficult to measure in the initial fireball. I do not know of any physical theory that suggests that ZPE should change with time.

(a) is true; (b) is not. You may detect a Doppler shift in the light frequency, but as the speed of light is constant, the wave front will always be circular/spherical (in the absence of distortion or lensing by massive objects).

Is the original destroyed in the beaming process? If not, you continue to see Earth. Each of the people showing up on Mars and Venus will believe themselves to be you as well, but you would not have any direct access to their thoughts or perceptions.