Psycho

Hm....I would avoid saying that they are impossible in biology, you just have to look at the diversity of life to look at quite frankly ridiculous things that evolution has brought about, i'm sure many things that don't happen could happen given millions of years and the evolutionary pressures, to say well really understand how they would form is a bit of joke. So no humans couldn't be made to fly, but as someone mentioned with hand gliders you can fly along cliffs for many miles due to the up draft that forms from the sea below them, i'm not sure if this is the case if there is no water below but it maybe.

Did that not happen many pages ago when they were exactly the same as the page before with jryan just saying the graph was wrong and not providing any evidence and with pretty much everything him saying about the graphs being wrong, or am I the only one that noticed this.

One option just could be to get a job to make enough money so in the summer between the years of your degree you can do work experience relevant to your field and won't have to worry if it is paying you or not. This will mean you have better work experience option due to you already having knowledge from the degree, as well as the university having contact that will help you find a good placement.

The real question is would that be better or worse than breathing in pure Chlorine, which isn't advisable from experience. At least you can spit Sodium out after the chemical burns and then your only left with burning NaOH in your mouth.

You have the same amount of Cl- ions in 1 litre of 0.060M solution or 4 litres of 0.015M solution, presuming you don't have to work out how long it would take to reach equilibrium in which case the concentration will matter, the volumes can be interchanged if the concentration is change proportionality. Volume (L) X Concentration (M) = Moles

Under your definition most would fit sub-forums would fit under many different categories making the whole board so confusing to use it would be pointless, Global warming and atmospheric sciences are part of the environment, in both the layman term and scientific. Ecology is directly based of biology so I can hardly see how you can say it doesn't it there. Whereas I would agree that geology could have its own sub-forum I would predict that most of the geology based topics are taken place within the evolution and morphology sub-forum due to them directly relating to that as well.

That happens already, just more by trial and error, I fail to see what the difference is really, is it really better that people don't know that its happening to them in the first place like now. Who is to say that people aren't allowed to take part in these studies if it isn't harming them or unethical towards them in anyway.

Iron and sulphur are used in metabolism now, as is RNA, but they aren't conflicting theories.

To your question no, AFAIK the most we can do with a sequence is compare it to the many others and find out the likely function of it if it is an enzyme or structural protein, however if the data isn't present then that is pretty much the end point you can get from the sequence, you can even tell the 3D structure.

I don't think they are actually competing, Iron-Sulphur clusters are present in many proteins. As well as many organism using them as anaerobic energy sources in electron transport systems as terminal electron acceptors as well as in the cytochromes allowing the change in redox potential within them. The RNA world hypothesis says that RNA which can self-splice and create enzymes from itself is a completely different hypothesis on what the current state of life might have evolved from.

Yes, that is a point, but rather irrelevant as if you have a gun you can go about killing some far quicker easier and more accidentally than if you didn't. Yes, I have no idea where I would get a gun from, might be able to find a deactivated one at a car boot sale or something, but that is hardly illicit gang activity, then you have to get the ammo. I mean yes hardcore criminals can get there hands on them in organised crime circles, the average criminal who is trying to sell your phone and the £20 in your wallet can't and wouldn't even bother trying. I think you actually mean cars have a primary purpose, the whole argument was ridiculous in the first place, you can quite happily kill anyone with anything, including parts of your own body so under his fallacy everything would be banned and we would all be wrapped in breathable bubble wrap and cotton wool. I can't really see the disadvantage of reducing the number of guns over a period of time, yes an straight out ban is never going to work in the US but if you banned certain calibres then over say 15 years whittled away at the various types till you are left with people with legitimate reasons such as farmers, people interested in hunting and security forces, then inevitable the number of guns in the criminal population will be reduced as well.

Someone should write a post entitled "The evidence for evolution" with many examples, papers and science behind it, I mean it can't be very hard anyone who really denies it isn't basing there findings on evidence anyway and the post won't be addressed to them anyway, it would be addressed to the people who don't understand how evolution occurs because it has never been explained properly. I mean bacteria show masses of evidence evolution all the time, you can achieve it in a few days.

They would just die unless kept in a sterile environment, the immune system develops against pathogens during early life and if it doesn't develop sufficiently by this point it won't, this is thought to be one of the reason why allergies are increasing. Original a babies gastrointestinal tract has no bacteria in it, however they gain entry through food and help not only to protect a person as they have a niche in that environment that other bacteria won't be able to compete with but also help to break down food into its constituents, most prominently in the colon. Furthermore many bacteria found on the skin would be of grave risk to the person if they became injured and they would most likely be allergic to many substances such a pollen. I would think there symptoms would be similar to someone who suffers from AIDS, however they wouldn't get worse with time, but I would doubt they would get much better either.

I seem to be the only one who finds his topics quite entertaining but that maybe due to the odd seemingly obvious/completely illogical questions and assumptions that are made, not really for the scientific merit.

I wonder how much one of them would go for at auction, especailly considering you can still eat it, quite the delicacy. Another factor that stops honey going off is its antibacterial properties that are currently being researched to see if they can be used against antibiotic resistant bacteria on wounds, i'm sure this would help preserve them if originally they weren't encased in a sterile environment.

Indeed, if you don't understand what a microlitre symbol is then you really can't class yourself as any kind of scientist, not to mention getting it confused with uL, which as anything other than microlitres would be meaningless. The closest I have ever come to confusion is people writting the symbol backwards, which is hardly a misunderstanding just a mistake. Hands up people who have laptops without numberpads. Me for one, I have to press 1 key to activate it then the numbers aren't even in right place as it is based on the letter keys, it is just awkward.

That isn't even close to what I said though.

To an extent this could be true however it would still be based on the fact that the idea of happiness is subjective, if someone is generally a "happier" person due to the way they live there life, would they not feel sad at a level that another person would class as feeling happy. I think my point is that if it were true how would you go about testing it to give a reliable quantitative result.

There seem to be a lacking in knowledge of what biology/chemistry is actually based on. Organisms just interconvert different molecules into different structures. What goes in has to come out again just in a different form In a simple inorganic chemical example: 2 Na + 2 H2O --> 2 NaOH + H2 Everything that went in has come out again, the molecules cells are made of work on exactly the same principles but are far more complex with many more steps to create them.

A whole operon is never going to passed to another species via bacterial conjugation due to the way it works and an incomplete transfer would have no advantage to the recipient organism and therefore wouldn't be replicated with the host chromosome when dividing. Furthermore any constitutive genes will be located on the chromosomes and not in plasmids so won't easily be able to be transferred by conjugation due to a recombination event with an F-plasmid being required with the whole operon. Any bacteria which can't survive in the environment due to lack of cell wall components won't be able to enter the gastrointetinal tract, replicate the F-plasmid, after transcribing and translating many flagellin protiens as well as other proteins and assembing them in an unstable cell wall. That is without even mentioning the many defence systems the body has, how well do you think a bacteria with an unstable cell wall and lack of precursors to repair it is going to fair in an environment with high levels of lyzosyme in the saliva? I mean how much do you plan on eatting, E. coli doesn't smell great and I guess the taste isn't much better.

It depends how you want to go about producing them, you could take the route of Microbiology and Genetics and elucidate and manipulate pathways to use them too your own ends. Or in the case of Biochemistry map protein structures and then create inhibitors that block there action.

Well the strain would have to be selected for auxotrophy in glycerol or biotin anyway and then placed on a medium with these substances added in a limited amount and these wouldn't be available in the gastrointestinal tract. Infection would never occur unless the auxotroph had a reversion mutation even then it would not have the virulence plasmids within the strain to allow infection as that would reduce the yield of the wanted product, as well as being unwise.

There is research in the department I am studying at into the idea of panspermia and other idea, I would guess there is little research due to lack of funding, whatever you find out isn't going to be very useful apart from in an academic sense and the result of any provable science would most likely be easier achieved via another less expensive method. Anything that you did find out in data mining process would only add to the available information and wouldn't be provable, due to the nature of what the research is based on.

Hint 3: Which of the 20 naturally synthesised amino acids contain phosphorus?

You would be better off taking the THC genes or operon and inserting it using a transposon, or phage vector into E.coli and then screening for antibiotic resistance within the vector. You could also just add multiple plasmids and therefore have multiple gene copies within the bacteria however then it would have to have some kind of selective advantage otherwise it won't replicate with the replicating cell. If this were possible, which it isn't due to the pathway not being elucidated, you could then use multiple condition to see which makes the bacteria overproduce THC to the highest level. You would then have to purify it however this would create a extremely potent form of the drug, which would have the effects and grandeur that some people oh so claim that THC causes, it would just make you irritable, paranoid and hallucinate, therefore you would have to have some kind of "mixer", maybe binding it to a precipitate of some sort.