DrDNA

To summarize, I believe that it can be broken down as follows: DNA is about 3 things: nucleation, zippering and unzippering The ability of the DNA to form a nucleation complex is the rate limiting step: the probability of two ss DNA molecules simply banging into each other in the correct orientation. then Zipper <--> Unzipper (equilib) So, the answer should lie in how the solvent (EtOH) efects the above. Mobility and motion in the solvent (to form a nucleation complex) H bonding (EtOH vs HOH, between solvent molecules, between the DNA ds and also between ss DNA (including partially formed zippers) and the solvent) Solubility of the DNA (less in EtOH) Solubility of ions in soln (Na+Cl-....) Entropy (how will adding EtOH effect entropy?.....normally, an increase in disorder occurs as relatively ordered water is excluded from the helix core into the surrounding soln as the DNA zipper comes together) pKa (easier or harder to protonate/deptrotonate the ring and exocyclic Ns in EtOH) The ability of the solution ions to associate with the phosphates The organic solvent may make the pi pi interactions stronger. Stability of ss DNA in ethanol vs stability of ds DNA.

The same reason that I'm not arguing for or against putting pregnant women that smoke, drink, or take other harmful substances uder guard to prevent them from doing so.....because this thread is about abortion.

A problem would be engineering enough strength to hold the vacum and the bigger the structure, the more strength that would be necessary. Perhaps a bunch of tiny little structures coupled together, sort of like a sol gel.......but not porous and not made out of silicon......

DNA doesn't have a pH. pH refers to aqueous solutions. DNA DOES have several different pKa values. At certain pH values, different funtional groups on the DNA strand will accept protons and/or donate protons (their pKa for protonation or deprotonation). For example, the pKa for protonation of a PO4- group....and the various different pKa values for protonating and deprotonating the various different ring and exocyclic nitrogens on the bases (A, C, G, T). If you type "pKa nucleobase" or pKa DNA" in Google, you will probably find a whole lota info about this.

How about butt plugs that connect people and their pets to extremely efficient methane powered vehicles or methane fuel cell powered lap top computers?

A couple of things that are missed in some discussions about DNA duplex stability. The H bonds dictate specificity to a great extend (along with stability). Pi-Pi stacking interactions aka nearest neighbor effects contribute greatly to DNA stability. For example, CGA will have different stability than ACG. There is also an increase n entropy, exclusion of a LOT of water from the helix core as the two strands come together. Ionic strength of the solvent but also ions in the solvent. For exmple, increasing NaCl conc increases melting temp. Also, other ions, such as Mg++, Ni++, etc. The concentration of the DNA in the solution effects the melting temperature. Higher concentrations have higher melting temps. Organic solvent CAN effect stability. For example, you can add DMSO and still do many things like pcr. It increases pcr effeciency by lowering stability of GC rich regions which could otherwise cause problems. I believe that adding ethanol will raise the Tm because ions are not dissolved well in ethanol. Should force them together. EDIT: lowers solubility which should be kind of like raising concentration.

Believe what you wish. I certainly don't claim to speak for "everyone", but my stance on abortion has nothing to do with my own personal morality and/or a desire to legislate it onto others. It is about protecting the most helpless and most innocent from warrantless harm. That said, are you saying that societal codes should have nothing to do with morality?

We have switched over most of the bulbs in our household. But is it just us, or does the 10 yr lifetime claim on the box seem to be a stretch? Although they are lasting longer than incandescent, we seem to be getting only 1-2 yrs at most out them.

I find it interesting that the pro choice camp so eagerly clings on to choice (good) and take away my choice (bad), yet at the same time so easily dismisses life (very good) vs take away life (very very bad). If the issue was about choice and only choice, you wouldn't get any argument from me. However, my rights to choose start to decline when they begin to impede on another person's rights and that includes a person or even a potential person that lives inside somebody else.

Did you decide to ignore Mr Skeptic's statement completely? EDIT: Your choice of words, in particular the word "choice", is a big part of the problem as some of us that are against abortion view it...it is much more complicated than simply "choice" and no "choice". Choice is good....no choice or take away a person's choice is bad of course. That is all nice, neatly packed, packaged and clearly black and white. Unfortunately, in life and dead, there is a whole lot of gray area.

Was the logical conclusion unclear? What does older children in foster care have to do with abortion or parents waiting in line to adopt babies. PS: I wish this were not the case.

Yes. It is done all the time. There are a number of silanes and alkoxy silanes on the market to change the properties of glass. Rain-X and Rain Dance are probably the most popular glass (windshield) treatments for consumer use.

There are many want to be parents standing in line to adopt babies.

I'm not worried about blurred vision or even blindness or death as long as I don't have to wear those darned glasses any more and I can look more handsome, but is there any risk of anal leakage?

Your honor, I think Mr iNow did a wonderful job of stating HIS position on the issue. However, Mr iNow's position may in fact not relate to Mr Sever's actual position. It has no merit on Mr Sever's position other than to lead him to a preconceived conclusion. You have no choice but to hold Mr iNow in contempt of your court, your honor.

Never happen. It would take 3 or 4 humans to manage and clean up after just one damn dirty ape. I believe that another potential issue with this might be an increase in disease transmission. We are genetically so close to our monkey cousins that viral species jumping could be inevitable if we increased the population density and our proximity to it....ie, SIV (Simean "AIDS")

Objection your honor. The defense is clearly leading the witness (and how).

That is a Chemistry (bioorganic chemistry) paper Jerry. Rebek is very well respected in this field. So how are you not taking into account chemistry?

What is your background Jerry? 1. Are you attempting to discredit evolution theory with a computer program Jerry? 2. If you are, then why are you talking about biogenesis? They are 2 completely different things. Neither of which go against the existence of God or the truths in the Bible in any way shape or form. The Bible doesn't go into the mechanism of bird flight either, but no one ever has a problem with it. The theologians don't, the physicists don't and the bird certainly doesn't. I happen to be a born again Christian and a scientist and know for certain that faith and science are reinforcing; absolutely not opposed. This is not the way, Jerry. This will only lead to an ugly mess.

1. They are not objections. You asked for input and I gave it. 2. Other molecules are not immaterial. In particular if those molecules spontaneously assembled and were an aid to the sythesis of the conformations and sequences that replicated. Often making it too simple, just makes it too simple. Then I am missing your point. And what ever you get out is only going to be as good as what you put in. I must not get it because it looks like, without taking into account any of the chemistry, you are trying to determine function...which is a chemical function. Replication is a chemical activity. What "extra natural involvement" are you refering to? I am more interested in what chemical enviroments would have made it possible. For one thing it is difficult to prove a negative. Whose is MIT? RNA may be a doorway now, but you don't know what doorways existed when the atmosphere and the environment were nothing like the oxygen rich, near neutral pH atmosphere we enjoy today. But unless you have developed an omniscent intelligent being, that software will only output information that is based on what you put in. I am trying to determine exactly what it is you are putting in. You are going to give a specific reference. There are too many profs at MIT to count. You may consider it a minor detail. I do not. For one thing, when you confuse dependant and independant variables, the integrity of the data is lost. It sounds obvious. Except it appears you are trying to come to conclusions about biology and chemistry by ignoring the laws of chemistry and physics. What is your objective? Thank you but no. At least not yet anyway. I want to know what is going in before I see what is coming out. I'm really curious as to what it is you wish to accomplish with this.

It does appear to have certain.........advantages.......

Hmmm. Whoopsie. You're right. Better to live fast and die young (or marry a rich and beautiful sturdy young woman that will take care of you in the twilight years)

And the 5 most critical applications of microbes to life and civilization: beer, the atmosphere, wine, bread and beer.

I doubt that most people would ever confuse primordial life forms with bony creatures. Who are you saying is confused? Scientists? Actors that play scientists on TV? Your analogy to viruses would require a host which shouldn't yet exist. The simplicity of viruses rests in their reliance on hosts to perform metabolic processes and reproduce (for example). So, as houses made from bricks and mortar do not come before the people, viruses probably did not come first. Take away a host and the virus would have to get real complicated real quick or die. Unless this is just a way to take a jab at creationists, I think you will have a hard time finding anyone to disagree with your statement. "A redox reaction or what not"? Wow. That's sort of like saying the big bang was just a few atoms moving away from each other. Redox reactions too boring for you? OK. Just ignore them and make up something else. The primordial chemical reactions that took place would probably be best understood by a good understanding of organic and bioorganic chemistry and even some physical and inorganic chemistry. It was and is chemistry. That is certain. Not to minimize the value of Geology or Physics, but please. Geology ? that would be like studying a road map to try and understand how roads are built. Physics? Too many trees to study the forests based on each individual tree at the current time. Maybe when computers become REALLY big and REALLY fast, physics and chemistry will become one. But not in our lifetimes probably. Are you just trying to stir up commotion or do you really believe these things?

Very recent studies suggest otherwise. All Things Considered, February 5, 2008 · There are a lot of good reasons for people to lose weight and stop smoking — but saving money on lifetime health care costs isn't one of them, according to a study out of the Netherlands. The researchers found that healthy people cost governments more in the long run because they live years longer: an average of 4.5 years longer than people who are obese, and seven years longer than smokers. Economist Pieter van Baal, who led the study for the Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, talks with Melissa Block about the counter-intuitive idea that a healthy lifestyle costs more in terms of health care. Van Baal's study, "Lifetime Medical Costs of Obesity: Prevention No Cure for Increasing Health Expenditure," was published Monday in the online journal Public Library of Science-Medicine. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18711498 This is not including the savings to retirement programs like social security that the young dying unhealthy person has already paid into but will not collect. Eat away and smoke away. You'll leave more Social Security and Medicare/Medicade $$ for me.