Stefan-CoA

Structural isomer. Same chemical formula, different structure

If you work it out your v and Vmax should be relatively similar. Just work the % conversion rate they gave you to M/second and calculate your Vmax, you can then work from there just using the times that they gave you. i.e. If xM/second then how much in 10 seconds? And then just convert that back to percentage.

I can see the point you're making, but I'd be careful about drawing comparisons between murder and sexuality. Fair enough, both have an element of aggression present, but soon thereafter the neurological and biochemical aspects greatly diverge. I would also like to point out that the brain is a rather strange organ. If one gets hit by a "hormone storm" of sorts, sometimes there isn't much one can do. For murder for example there have been reports that during violent outbursts the perpetrators have "blanked out". Neurological evidence suggests that this is a possibility. As for homosexuality, I think it is of great scientific interest and may in future help with the abolishment of "straight camps". As for suppressing one's biology, I don't know to what extent this is possible. Sure gay men/women could enter into heterosexual partnerships, but I wouldn't want to be exposed to that sort of psychological pressure, as either partner.

For the younger folk I would suggest: Sophie's World - Jostein Gaarder Philosophy of Science - Geoffrey Gorham And my personal favourite, although pretty hectic (especially if you're a bit behind on philosophy like myself) Goedel, Escher, Bach - An Eternal Golden Braid - Douglas Hofstadter And a painful introduction to language Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus - Ludwig Wittgenstein A bit of art-philosophy mixed with brilliant use of language and a murder mystery My Name is Red - Orhan Pamuk Also Ayn Rand is very good, I'd suggest Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead But to be honest there is so much out there, I suggest spending a good hour or two in a bookstore at their philosophy and/or science section and just go with what you like. From there on you can always go on to bigger things. Wikipedia as has been suggested earlier is also an excellent place to start and just go link-hopping from there.

Either or. The thing is even if I do talk about things that I do know about, there comes a point where my knowledge has reached its limit. Either the other person(s) steps in and continues, or if we both have reached the limit we sit down and try to puzzle it out together. Very gratifying feeling that is, once you've solved a problem yourself. Of course certain topics are just beyond my ken and then I enjoy listening to people who know more than I do, interjecting now and then if I manage to reach a conclusion by myself (and hope that it's correct).

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/253/5023/1034.abstract and http://www.springerlink.com/content/l6104277w82137x4 Unfortunately neither are available for free but this should at least put to rest that tiresome argument that homosexuality is a choice or that no biological/genetic evidence exists for the cause of homosexuality. As for the whole idea of being "morally corrupt" this is just ludicrous. If you want morally corrupt all you need to do is look at the Catholic Church, raping children and proclaiming the use of condoms as being responsible for the spread of AIDS is in my book far more corrupt, morally, than two guys or girls engaging in intercourse. If that doesn't convince you then look at all the suffering around you, wars, famine, disease. Why do you get so excited about whether two people have sex or not? Does it matter? Are they forcing you to watch them have sex? Are they forcing you to have sex with them? No. So grow up.

Oops! Thanks though. Slight confusion.

No, glycolysis is the breakdown of glucose into pyruvate. With glycogen breakdown do you mean gluconeogenesis? It's the process whereby glycogen (a storage molecule of glucose) is converted back into glucose to meet the body's energy demands. The regulatory molecule in this case is glucagon which achieves the opposite of insulin (this initiates the conversion of glucose into glycogen).

In South Africa we had planned and nearly begun construction of a pebble-bed reactor which would have alleviated our energy shortage, given us greater economic leverage (we export a lot of our electricity), provided much-needed jobs and reduced the cost of our electricity. But, we had idiots such as Green peace boycott the endeavour by misleading our very gullible public with false information and sensationalism. Renewable energy is all fun and games in countries that already have an established energy grid (built upon coal, gas, nuclear) but trying to force developing countries into solar/wind power simply because it's better for the environment is immoral when there are people suffering.

Google it. As for the cis-9 part, read up on your chem notes or visit chem-wiki.

Inspecting with the skin is pretty much what 'touch' is. Also, unless you want to engage in semantics, contact and touch are the same thing. If you stimulate your sensory areas wouldn't you become MORE awake? Seeing as how you're basically inducing a state of sensory awareness by stimulating those areas? Your brain will be what stimulates your body. There isn't a different part of you that can stimulate your brain at will, since will itself is derived from the brain. That said there are bio-feedback mechanisms that allow people with enough training to regulate heart beat and all that. And of course you can stimulate your entire body at will, that's what being alive is about, breathing, walking, talking, eating, and the thousands of other activities we can engage in. So about stimulating your body and your 'insides' you'll have to be a bit more specific please.

First of all, what? In a deterioration sort of way? Please elaborate. Second of all, luckily science does not depend on belief, but facts. And there is a swathe of genetic and paleontological evidence (hard, scientific evidence) which indicates what you believe about organismal relationships to be wrong. Currently the most viable theory as to the 'origin of life' is the RNA world hypothesis. Which is to say that somewhere along the line in the primordial soup scenario you had the appearance of auto-catalytic RNA molecules that could self-replicate. Also asexual reproduction predates sexual reproduction. I suppose the main source of variation came from the inaccuracy of the DNA/RNA polymerases of that time. Sexual reproduction by consuming each other? Are you rather referring to something like the endosymbiont theory (mitochondria/chloroplasts)

Anyways, back to the science. Did he actually incorporate this recombinant protein into an active virus again or were they expressed in a bacterial cell culture? Because, as I've mentioned I haven't heard of anyone being able to actually modify a life HIV. If he was studying one protein why would he use 3 different strains, especially recombining them? Wouldn't this create a new/hybrid protein different from the one he wanted to study? Why not start of with one strain, determine the function of that? It seems easier.

Sorry, I just dislike how people are always quick to jump on the band-wagon of "Oh but the poor Jews". After reading up on how they got their country, I can understand why Arabia would be rather angry towards them, seeing as how "Israel" pretty much "stole" their holy city from them and then barred entry to Arabs, all with the help of the UK and US. So, I can understand this antagonism towards the West coming from those countries. Also rather provocative naming their country after a name for the Muslim angel of death. (according to wikipedia at least). As long as there are reasons to hate people will hate, as long as there is inequality people will hate and resent. This is something you won't get rid of within the next century.

Yeah because murdering people on a relief effort is obviously kosher. Also practically stealing the land from countries that had been there for decades if not centuries based upon a fictional account of the history isn't bound to get people riled up

Yeah they're anaerobic. I'm assuming you incubated them aerobically? Fac anaerobes prefer oxygen, but are able to grow in anoxic environments, if you had any they'd be closer to the top. So what pwagen said was true to my knowledge, the oxygen would kill the anaerobes (or severely hamper their growth) so they grow as far down as possible. P.S. From what I can gather you have a pretty decent cell count

1) Cheaper, more targeted vaccines, more environmentally resistant crops, crops/livestock with better yields or less food requirements. 2) As opposed to profiling by skin colour? If one can determine from the DNA sequence that a rapist was east-asian with some caucasian in him/her, then I say go for it. Plus there are a bunch of laws in effect all over the world that make this sort of thing illegal when hiring/firing people. So in employment terms I don't see much of an issue when it comes to race. 3) I do agree with the points made about profiling according to genetic diseases though, people should be hired according to their apparent ability NOT their genetic possibility.

1: Talk to someone in your field of interest A.S.A.P 2: Not always, ten to one you'll start off cleaning dishes and they'll slowly teach you what you need to know 3: Yeah, you can always google lab techniques, or wiki them to get a general idea of what's required since most labs will usually adapt protocols depending on what they need done. Books on scientific thought, try the science section at your local bookstore, I can recommend 'Philosophy of Science' by Geoffrey Gorham, it's very easy to read and gives you a solid foundation to build on. Furthermore you could wiki the scientific method and philosophy of science and just bounce around from there. Undergrad research/working in a lab is extremely fun and sometimes they even pay you! Also it never hurts to get a lil' buddy-buddy with the profs. So all you need to do is decide on what's the most interesting and then find a prof and ask him/her. 'course this may differ to wherever you're from but this is my experience.

No, if we could manipulate the virus to such an extent we would have found a cure already I'm sure. The problem with HIV is that it mutates far too quickly for us to do anything useful with it at this point in time. It's also (so I hear) a pain to culture in the lab so in order to do something like that, you'll need to solve a) how to successfully culture the virus and b) how to incorporate the desired mutations that aren't lost during the virus' natural mutations and don't decrease the ability of the virus to infect. The markers used to test for the virus are also the ones that allow for its virulence I think.

Emotions can be seen as being genetically controlled as they are nothing more than hyper/hypo activity in certain parts of the brain based upon the action of hormones and electrical signals, the pathways of which are laid down by the genetic code. But recent evidence suggests that nurture also plays a large role in forming the brain with regards to how emotions are processed (felt) and initiated. So I'm guessing about half can be put down to your genetic information. This would have had advantages several thousand years ago when we had a greater need for the specific responses the emotions initiate. See bear -> signal from eyes to brain Brain initiates -> "Oh sh*t a bear" response Cortisol and epinephrine flood the system -> Body is ready to run far away See rival tribe taking your women -> signal from eyes and ears to brain Brain initiates -> "That bugger's taking my mate" response Coritsol, epinephrine, oxytocin and a few others I'm guessing flood your system -> You run after him to give him a beating Of course, since then our environment has changed, now we have bears in zoos and prostitutes, so you get these little sub-classifications, like jealousy and irritation etc etc.

Blog would possibly be a better medium, although less interactive. Personally I think it's a great idea, I feel the same as imatfaal does. These days scientists are so focused on their area of specialty they forget that there is a whole universe of science out there. Wouldn't it be curious to see the return of the polymath? Maybe solve a physics problem using principles from biology or vice-versa? I definitely think this idea should receive a go-ahead. Maybe one could even present these discussions to the public then? Make science more accessible to the general populace, rekindle the flame? Maybe it's just hopeless dreaming. Of course, one should beware the copyright laws, I'm not sure how legal posting papers is going to be, as sad as it is, some scientists really like their money.

As in when they were discovered or actually going back in time and seeing which ones were the most recent to evolve? The first one should be easy enough, just google it, I think it's hDEC2 or something like that. The latter is more difficult to answer I think, again try google or wiki. You'll probably find that it's a whole list of them, possibly involving things like cognition, language, conscience and the like. I can't give you an exact date though, sorry.

This is true, wiki usually gives you access to free resources, albeit slightly dated at times it's still the most useful starting point bar google/scholar

Try using Google scholar, sometimes you strike it lucky and you find a paper that you can download for free. What's your area of interest though? Micro, biochem, genetics, anatomy etc?

How would such a mechanism work though? You've simply got complexity 'programmed' in from the start? Yet how did this arise? How would this account for diversity? Natural preprogramming would suggest a "programmer" of sorts? I may just be stuck within the natural selection mindset though so I can't say I've looked at every possibility.