LucidDreamer

No way to tell. My guess is that it would be quite different because of the whole "butterfly effect."

Well, its saying that machinery involved in transcription (the process where DNA is copied to RNA) is prevented from working correctly when you use a triple helix instead of a double helix. So, that means that the current system of storing and translating our genetic code cannot operate with a triple helix. That could be just because life evolved around a double helix and doesn’t mean that a triple helix system isn't possible. Also, these studies were done on Eukaryotes, so you can't tell what effects a triple helix might have on a prokaryote from this article.

"Triple helix DNA alters nucleosomal histone-DNA interactions and acts as a nucleosome barrier. Oligonucleotides which form triple helical complexes on double-stranded DNA have been previously reported to selectively inhibit transcription both in vitro and in vivo by physically blocking RNA polymerase or transcription factor access to the DNA template. Here we show that a 16mer oligonucleotide, which forms triple helix DNA by binding to a 16 bp homopurine segment, alters the formation of histone-DNA contacts during in vitro nucleosome reconstitution. This effect was DNA sequence-specific and required the oligonucleotide to be present during in vitro nucleosome reconstitution. Binding of the triple helix oligonucleotide on a 199 bp mouse mammary tumour virus promoter DNA fragment with a centrally located triplex DNA resulted in interruption of histone-DNA contacts flanking the triplex DNA segment. When nucleosome reconstitution is carried out on a longer, 279 bp DNA fragment with an asymmetrically located triplex site, nucleosome formation occurred at the border of the triple helical DNA. In this case the triplex DNA functioned as a nucleosome barrier. We conclude that triplex DNA cannot be accommodated within a nucleosome context and thus may be used to site-specifically manipulate nucleosome organization." Nucleic Acids Res. 1995 June 25; 23(12): 2184–2191 http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=307006

I don't think they would because they would still lack the accessible start codon and translation initiators (shine-degarno/5' cap) and as you mentioned they might get hung up on the modified bases. I don't know for sure though.

I think the answers have already been given. tRNA, mRNA, and rRNA all undergo different post-transcriptional modifications. The mRNAs will fold in a way where the start codon and shine degarno sequence or 5' end cap stay accessible to the ribosomes. These components are essential to initiation of translation. The tRNAs will also undergo extensive post-transcriptional modifications and will fold into a clover like shape that does not have or present a translational initiation sequences. The individual components of rRNA will fold and form a complex much like a polypeptide enzyme, which makes them inaccessible to be translated and they lack translational initiation sequences as well.

Im confused about what you are asking for.

Sounds like a stomach virus to me.

There is a small correlation between brain size and intelligence within humans, so if you were to guess two random people's intelligence based on brain size you would be right more than 50% of the time. Attempting to determine human intelligence based on brain size is not worthwhile because the size differences are relatively small and the characteristics of human intelligence are often hidden within the microscopic or smaller levels, though mental abnormalities leading to a mental deficiency can sometimes be seen with the eye. Comparing two animal's levels of intelligence is easier because they often have very large differences in brain size and there are often big differences between the amounts of cerebral brain material, which is associated with what we call intelligence. A very large difference in brain size between two mammals is a good indication of a difference in intelligence, which has been demonstrated through research. A larger brain does not always indicate greater intelligence, especially if the animal with the larger brain has a much larger body. This is because larger mammalian bodies require larger areas of the brain associated with the senses and movement, such as the cerebellum. For example, large whales have larger brains than human. This is where it is sometimes useful use brain size to body mass to determine intelligence.

There are more disorders associated with XY than XX because XX has gene redundancy.

Assuming that all the kinks are already worked out of this system, I would definitely do this for myself and every family member and friend that I could take with me. Oh, and I am also assuming that I wouldn't be stealing somebody else’s body.

I think the exceptionally stupid men come from: 1) More mental retardation and disorders, resulting from having an XY chromosome pair instead of an XX. 2) Men who are not especially bright to begin with won't try as hard to overcome their mental difficulties, but instead will use their physicality to fulfill their needs. The exceptionally bright men come from society’s pressure and men's natural inclination to try to prove themselves. If you are a man and you want to prove your worth, you better have/make money or be especially bright.

There is only a very small correlation between brain size and intelligence. Einstein didn't have a brain size that was a lot less than average; it was average at 1230cc. Brain's shrink with age and his brain is often compared to the average brain from a person in their 20's. Factoring in shrinkage and a natural variation in brain size, he was well within average, maybe slightly below the mean. Depends on exactly what you mean. If you were talking about an alien species then we would have no idea how their brain size related to their intelligence. If we are talking about life on earth then we can estimate intelligence from brain size, but it isn't totally reliable.

Somebody should revise the wiki definition.

So, you think the feminist movement encourages woman to practice whitchcraft? I might agree with this statement, "The feminist agenda is a political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands and become lesbians." I'm don't think even that statement is totally true but its funny to say.

I'm pretty sure that's wrong because graphite and diamond are allotropes.

Are you sure that the wiki definition is saying that a liquid can be an allotrope to a solid and not that two allotropes can exist in any one of the states?

Rape is about power and control over a woman, fueled by sexual desire. Imagine a guy who is doesn't have much to live for. He is poor, unattractive, untalented, and he has lived a hard life, most likely victimized himself. Women seem cruel to him because he doesn't get the time of day from them. He fantasizes about taking control of them and just taking what he wants. Eventually he might try to fulfill his fantasy. Imagine another man, who is thoroughly narcissistic; he is completely self-absorbed and only thinks of himself. Since he is so self-absorbed he has trouble empathizing with other people. Woman are just objects of desire; it never dawns on him that they are people or he is simply to self-absorbed for him to comprehend it. He likes control and it angers him when he doesn’t get what he wants. He may be sadist and enjoy inflicting pain on others. He is also likely to appear normal to other people, just another guy. If he is in a situation with a woman where she turns down, he may decide to take control over her; show her whose boss and get what he wants.

The definition of an allotrope: differerent forms of the same element in the same state. Ice and water are in different states, one is a solid and the other is a liquid. Graphite and diamonds are both solids.

I don't believe that bulimics throw up every time they eat, only sometimes.

http://news.uns.purdue.edu/html4ever/981203.Chmielewski.ptds.html http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8700225&dopt=Citation

But going to the trouble to really understand a current scientific theory isn't as much fun as learning just a tiny bit and then coming up with my own crazy theory that appears to be better than the original because of my lack of understanding.

RNA would have been created the same way it is today, by the enzymatic function of a protein. In this case the self-replicating protein would have had an alternate enzymatic site that created RNA. The second part of the question is difficult to answer but it would obviously have been involved in an enzymatic function, perhaps it would have been involved in the creation of proteins, like the function of RNA within a modern ribosome. Maybe the first element of life was a protein that created RNA that created protein. How about a metal coenzyme like iron or copper that helped perform some sort of oxidation/reduction reaction? What about phospholipids and their ability to form compartments? What about carbohydrates and their ability to form various structures and attachments? - The catalytic functions (facilitation of chemical reactions) of RNA are limited. However the possible chemical reactions that can occur with the help of proteins are almost limitless. The chemistry of life depends on enzymes that perform various catalytic functions. Since enzymes are made of protein, proteins are essential to the chemistry of life. In order to harness energy, store energy, build structures, create gases or break down gases, etc. you need enzymes to facilitate the chemical reactions. The complex reactions involved in the replication of DNA and its transcription to RNA can only occur through the reactions that are made possible with protein enzymes.

Incomplete dominance is when two traits are expressed at once, and they are blended together. For example, one allele normally produces a white flower and another allele produces a red flower, but when you have a genotype with one of each allele you end up with a pink flower. Codominance is also when two traits from two alleles are expressed at once, but instead of a blending of traits, all of the traits are expressed at once without any reduction. So if you had a flower with codominace for a red color allele and a white color allele, then you might have two flowers, one white and the other red.

The general answer is that retroviruses have preferences for sites that have lots of gene activation. There are certain sites that have more ERV activity than they would by random choice, which could be do in part to a viruses preference in choosing sequences plus only sites where the ERV isn't going to interfere with essintial gene activity will be passed on. So the integration is often not random but there are many hundreds or thousands of hotspots in a genome that a retrovirus might choose. This coupled with the fact that within the hotspots there are dozens to thousands of locations to choose from makes it unlikely that the same virus would insert itself in the same hotspot at the same spot within the hotspots of several different animals. This is not a complete smoking gun because different viruses have different levels of specificity and some seem to have very specific sites that they like to insert themselves. So a counter argument would be that this particular virus had a very specific site that it inserted itself into. You could then counter that some of the ERV's have a gene coding for integrase, which is pretty nonspecific. http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=9&t=79&m=1 http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=17875 http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=9&t=89&m=1

This conversation often ends up as a debate between those who think that it's a choice and those who believe that it's genetic. I don't believe that it's as simple as that. I believe there is a genetic component because people's hormone levels and brain hardwiring differ from person to person. There is also an environmental component to it. I think the environmental component has one of the greatest influences, but it is also the hardest component to understand. There are so many thoughts and experiences that go into creating the make-up of an individual. What kind of males and females was that person exposed to as a child? Did he/she have older sisters or older brothers? Did he/she happen to see his/her older siblings having sex with someone else? What were the person’s first experiences like when they began to see themselves as a sexual being? What were the feelings about homosexuality like in their household? Did they experience unhealthy exposure to a sexual act? What were their earliest sexual experiences like? All of these environmental factors combine with the person's mental make-up. A person's thoughts about their experiences will also be a factor. If they had some homosexual thoughts, did they experience guilt for having them? Are they a person who is likely to be heavily influenced by how other people think they should act? It is clearly not just a choice because sexuality is not a rational thought process; it is a very instinctual process that works on a subconscious level. It is true that you could choose to abstain from homosexual sex or any kind of sex, but it is also true that you could choose not to eat, drink, be addicted to heroine, work, or smoke. But all of these things are far more complicated than just not choosing to do them. It is clearly not purely genetic or otherwise you would not find so many women today who have had lesbian experiences now that it is so accepted. You would also not find so many cases of male homosexuality in certain cultures like ancient Greece or in modern prisons where it is very common. I don't believe that the ancient Greeks had a gay gene or that a lesbian gene is on the rise in America or that prisoners pick up a gay gene on the way in and drop it off when they leave. A person's environment combined with their mental-makeup and their individual physiology will result in a certain behaviors and thoughts, including sexual preference.