immortal

I think he is talking about the intragenomic conflict. Even I want your opinion on this. Links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intragenomic_conflict

Then why it can't be symbiosis without quorum sensing there can't be biofilms. I read somewhere that you are studying symbiotic relationships. So do organisms show reciprocal altruism i.e. I help you today hoping that you will help me in the future and thanks for the advice.

A whale will be able to glide on a planet which has less gravity.

It is just a matter of time where a group of scientists confirms it. Links: http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/11/3/18/

Actuall I read it on webster world. Here are some links:- http://www.physorg.com/news3665.html http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/~mim/res.html http://moriond.in2p3.fr/EW/2003/Transparencies/2_Monday/2_2_afternoon/2_2_6_Murphy/M_Murphy.pdf

I apologise I was in a hurry and I do know that there are studies on speciation for example; the study of the phenomenon of ring species on some insect eating birds called warblers. Species is a human idea not a natural force. A individual is either undergoing speciation or has the potential for speciation. We are intermediates.

Natural selection acts on genes, not on species or individual. And similarly the 'fittest' that do the surviving are the fittest genes or rather the fittest genotypes, rather than the fittest individuals remember individuals die at the end; genes don't. I am not saying that you are wrong I do know that there is not a single gene that determines your height or hair colour its more like a gene complex that interacts with each other. The sefish gene theory looks on a genes point of view it does not rejects Darwinism but it adds to it. Dawkins says neither of the theories are right or wrong; they are equivalent. You can look at evolution in two ways on a genes angle and on a organisms point of view. Genes don't have control over the individual. Genes control by protein synthesis which is powerful but slow. But behaviour is very quick for example; you have to choose a mate and you know that you have to choose the best one's and reject the odd one's it would take time for the genes to make the choice but your instincts does it more quickly. Genes don't make choices for us but it will surely make us feel for the choices we make for example; novelty genes. Well does an honey bee know to which species it belongs to and which are'nt. The honey bees don't save their relatives but save the colony and saving the colony is equivalent to saving their genes. Remember Evolution is not for the good of the species it is for the good of the genes.

I asked my physics teacher whether refractive index can be negative and he said that it can't be. But a group of scientist have made a meta material which has a negative R.I and it has made possible to make perfect lens which can focus at an area less than wavelenght of light. Do the laws in physics change often for example General relativity says it is imposible to travel faster than the speed of light but according to quantum mechanics it is possible for a photon to travel faster than the speed of light. LINK:- http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-6/p37.html

But Biofilms do have different species of bacterias and also algae, protozoa and fungi etc.. which use Quorum sensing.

I think what Nirenberg and others did is that they synthesised poly chains like UGUGUGUG..... and they obtained the polypeptide chains with alternating amino acids (i.e. UGU- codes for cysteine and GUG- codes for Valine) and simillarly CACACACA..... and they obtained the codes for amino acids histidine (CAC) and threonine (ACA).

I do agree that without new technologies for gene therapy and a universal vaccine for cancer the probability of me getting attacked by cancer is very huge. I know that the road to achieve immortality has some ups and downs. There are genes like KLOTHO and MORF4, there are antioxidants, there are stem cell enhancers but I think these things are not sufficient to achieve immortality.

Yeah even I heard that. The fine structure constant is changing i.e. alpha = e*2/hc. If this constant is changing than one of the other constant should change. The value of alpha is 1/137. But there is no abrupt change and its just 1% true and 99% fluke. I think it is the speed of light which is changing. I don't know much about cosmos.

First, everything makes perfect sense when you think at a gene level, evolution is all about survival of the genes, the mutations happens to genes and the genes (i.e.individual) with positive mutations gets selected and not the species. The species is selected only after the individual has passed this mutant genes. Here is a link which suggests that positive selection of a single gene can create new species. http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v30/n4/abs/ng852.html Second, yes there is always a selfish component, for example:- why do male honey bees sting even after knowing that losing their fangs would kill them, they sting because they are sterile they can't produce offsprings. So saving the colony is their ultimate goal. Fifth, Bacterias communicate with each other with chemical substances called 'pheromones'. I do agree that they act as multicellular but you can't say this has 'not symbiosis' any mutual relationship with different species for the welfare of each other is called symbiosis. Symbiosis is not only seen in bacterias, for example:- Quorum sensing bacterias stay in symbiosis with fishes the bacterias provide light for the fish to catch prey and the fish gives shelter. I do agree that this is not purely altruistic.

I think Symbiosis evolved bit earlier than everyone would have thought. The fact that the mitochondria have their own DNA suggests that once these were independently living and somehow got inside the eucaryotic cells and exchanged genes. The endosymbiosis theory explains that. E.coli doesn't always stay in symbiosis with the humans if it gets access to the urinary bladder it causes a disease called cystitis. E.coli has to maintain its ecosystem (i.e. host) in order to stay alive and replicate. Quorum sensing is a wonderful example of symbiosis. Genes sometimes can be altruistic.

Yes I am a student willing to take up molecular biology as my future career. I know there are different causes for cancer and plenty of mutated genes that lead to the abnormalities but if we can somehow prevent the primary tumour cell from spreading to other cells, the cancerous cell would die as it is alone. It takes a number of mutations for cells to be cancerous and it is not a problem if these cells die as cells are not very important (because new cells will arise all the time) and coming to my topic now I do agree that adding telomerase will be a bad idea because there is lot of uncertainity in it.

Telomerase has nothing to do with the abnormalities that occur in cancer cells it just helps the cells to divide infinitely. The abnormalities occur due to some mutations in the cells.

Sooner or later medicine will enter a new century with innovative technologies evoving all the time. Here is a link of a company which uses electroporation technology to deliver genes safely and efficiently. http://www.inovio.com/technology/genedelivery.htm

Genes set up our bodies for themselves. Evolution is all about survival of the genes nor the individual or the species.

The thing which differentiates us from the rest of the animals is that we have a highly developed culture. So any animal which has a high culture will be the most intelligent one. A baby entering a new world does'nt know anything about General Relativity as Insane_alien said 'memes have to be taught'. It looks to me as if the genes lose control over the individual (not entirely though) after it has entered the new world. There is no gene that says go sky diving or play rugby. If genes don't make choices for us then there should be something else?

I know its hard to say that evolution is universal unless we find life elsewhere. But if evolution is not universal then how the organisms would look like do they have wheels instead of legs or are we going to see the same stuffs again?

We can use nonviral delivery systems such as polyethylenimine(PEI), a synthetic polymer which can deliver gene safely into the cells. Since the efficiency of this polymer is low it is a long way from implementation.

I think I am too young to argue with you but, evolution kicks in when something replicates. On earth the replicator is a gene (lot depends on whether you accept this gene has living or non living) evolution does'nt start after the over production of the genes. It does not matter whether it is surrounded by many other genes or it is alone it has to adapt itself to the environment to survive however the competition will be huge if it is surrounded by other genes. This selfish behavior of the gene created the things which we see around us. Its difficult to define life without evolution. If you say that living organisms will not limit the number of offsprings they produce then why do humans limit it. If a human produces a single offspring and if the child dies out without spreading his genes then this would be disaster. Don't you think cultural evolution has diverted the path of biological evolution and I am afraid that one day memes might take over the genes

You can always switch off the gene as soon as the average telomere length is achieved and prevent cancerous cells.

Is these ideas going to work. As we all know that the life span of chromosomes depend on their telomere length. With the help of RNAinterference can we switch on the gene in humans which synthesises the enzyme telomerase and live forever. Or else You can overexpress the Klotho gene to produce more klotho protein to increase your life span.

All the organisms on earth have the same genetic code and if life evolved simultaneosly at different places then their should be different genetic codes.This makes a strong point in favour of theory of panspermia. My second point is the triplet codon UAG as we all know is a terminator but in some methanogenic bacterias it codes for the amino acid pyrrolysine.Is this vast randomness which makes the evolution going.