Supreme Ct: Gitmo detainees have rights in US courts. AP,10:27am

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
brainfix		#41	[-]
(06/15/08 01:27 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Friend Request Blocking Visit My Community Ignore User's Posts	No need to convince me, ole buddy. You have economy of view, a very desirable trait.
Unperennial Junior		#42	[-]
(06/15/08 05:07 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Friend Request Blocking Visit My Community Ignore User's Posts	"Thus, in one version, Wingnuto himself prepared the experimental batch of seeds in Azerbaidzhan; in the other, it was his father who soaked the seeds, and they were his own. The first article referred to "a small batch" of seeds; in the second, the small batch had grown to "nearly 50 kilograms." (Some biologists have suggested that perhaps, when grain was being expropriated from the peasants during the collectivization campaign, Wingnuto's father concealed two sacks of seeds in the snow, the seeds became wet from the snow and sprouted; and, in the following spring, he planted them on the off chance that they would grow and mature.) Acccording to the first article, Wingnuto invited the Ukrainian Commissariat of Agriculture to visit the "experimental fields", whereas the second article says his father brought samples of the wheat to the commissariat, after which the commissariat sent a commission to Karlovka. Furthermore, in the July Pravda article, the vernalized seed had been sown on a plot of one and a half hectares; in an article that appeared in two different publications in 1932, Wingnuto wrote that the sowing had been on a half-hectare plot. There are also discrepancies in the figures for the yield obtained from this "experimental" sowing. In July, before the crop had been harvested, the commissariat's commission estimated the yield of spring-sown winter wheat at "nearly three metric tons per hectare. Shlikhter reported it, after the harvest, as having been "over two and a half tons per hectare." In later articles, Trofim Wingnuto spoke of 24 centners, or 2.4 metric tons- which would still be three and a half times the national average for spring wheat at that time. In 1935, Wingnuto soberly stated that, in the preceeding year, "the average increase in yield due to vernalization was 1.14 centners [0.114 metric tons] per hectare on the 1,060 kolkhozes that reported harvest data. That would be an increase of only about 15 percent over the 1928-1929 average. In the same year, Wingnuto pere spoke of increases of 3 centners per hectare in 1933, declining to 1.75 in 1934 and to 1.2 in 1935. This is no more than what might be expected. Consequently, we must regard the reports of a large harvest from vernalized winter wheat as false. Even if vernalization per se could increase yields, there are countervailing factors to be considered. First mold develops on moist grain. Second, in order to subject the sprouted seeds to cold and at the same time prevent overheating, the mass of seeds must be constantly turned, which inevitably would break many of the small, tender sprouts. As a result, there were fewer shoots to be germinated in the field, so that more seeds had to be sown. Moreover, it was impossible to achieve uniform treatment of all the seeds, particularly in the agricultural conditions of the time. Finally, although the plants grown from vernalized seeds may bear heavier ears than from seeds sown in the normal way, there are fewer of them. What all of this indicates is that there were no trustworthy data about the results of the "experiment". Indeed, it would not qualify as an experiment at all by the ordinary criteria of science. There were no comparisons between experimental and control samples, there was no repetition of the work, and there was no rigourous description in a scientific publication.
Econ		#43	[-]
(06/15/08 07:48 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Friend Request Blocking Visit My Community Ignore User's Posts	leftwingnut wrote: Your explanation of the operon is just as I predicted you would claim in the thread where you completely misused the term. In fact, I defined operon in that thread, and pointed out how badly you had misused the term. Look, you're not dealing with a science illiterate like Wide-Stance Willard or UJ or Retardo here. Try again. Would you like me to revive the thread where you demonstrated your lack of understanding of freshman-level biology? Hey LWN - if you look in the article on OPERONS and INTERONS by the PhD author that I just posted for you HE defines OPERONS for you (not me). If it is exactly as you described I would say, then the PhD agrees with me and not you. Also, if you could read, you would see the following paragraph in the article: RNA splicing occurs when "gaps" of nonprotein-code-carrying nucleotides called interons are removed from the code-carrying nucleotides, called exons, which are then connected to shorten the RNA molecule for conversion into tRNA and rRNA. The number of interons regulates the speed at which the RNA can be processed. So interons were just something I made up, huh? Try again! Do you even understand what you are reading? As explained in the article, operons are protein sequences (genes) that are controlled by repressors (chemicals that keep them inactive). When the repressors are removed, the operon is active (switched on) and the RNA transfer process begins again (m-RNA, t-RNA and rRNA transfer - these carry gene segments as shown in the diagram provided). This is, it is theorized, the mechanism by which abnormal cell growth is initiated in metastatic tumors. This isn't at all controversial or incorrect, so I don't know what your problem is other than you just don't know what you are talking about and want to shoot your mouth off in the face of all evidence to the contrary. Very much like your opinions on the GITMO ruling that this thread is about.
Econ		#44	[-]
(06/15/08 08:02 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Friend Request Blocking Visit My Community Ignore User's Posts	leftwingnut wrote: Prediction: Right-wing science illiterates (is that a redundancy??) will all think Econ knows what he's talking about, because he posted something that explains what an operon is... Never mind that the context in which he used the term and the explanation he posted today bear absolutely no resemblance to each other... Intelligent people, on the other hand, will notice that the posting Econ the "biochemist" (snort) provided bears absolutely no resemblance to the way he originally used the term... and pretty much corresponds to how I used the term in the original thread.... There is absolutely no underestimating the stupidity of a right-wing moron.... Meanwhile, he will NEVER justify his invention of this whole interon nonsense.... As I posted above, the PhD geneticist who wrote the article apparently believes interons exist, too. Well, let's keep on exposing your idiocy. Definition for you: Animals, plants, fungi, and protists are eukaryotes (IPA: /juːˈkærɪɒt/ or IPA: /-oʊt/), organisms whose cells are organized into complex structures enclosed within membranes. That includes humans, moron. The article is ABOUT the Clever mechanisms turn genes off and on so that they only function when there is a need for their services. This switching on/off of RNA replication in cells is what has been developed into the theory that in animals (Eukaryotes, including humans, not prokaryotic bacteria) this causes abnormal cell growth - cancer. Did you get that now or do I need to spell it out for you? The interon exists (contrary to your statements) along with operons in humans and the interon (linked closely with repressor chemicals) regulates gene expression and recombination in the cells. How many more articles from PhDs that support what I said would you like me to forward? Because they all agree with me. You are out on a limb with a saw, buddy. But feel free to keep making yourself look stupid. It just shows to go you about your opinions - and serves to undermine anything you have to say.
Y DEVELOP		#45	[-]
(06/15/08 08:57 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Friend Request Blocking Visit My Community Ignore User's Posts	You all espress opinions based on your ideology and politics, not Constitutional Law or International Law (such as it is) - Econ Well, you bloated bloviated ass the Supreme Court rendered a decision and they didn't ask you yours. So shut the fuck up! You know nothing moron!
Unperennial Junior		#46	[-]
(06/15/08 09:01 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Friend Request Blocking Visit My Community Ignore User's Posts	Nice post, Econ. Reckon I took some offense at being called a scientific illiterate. True, I didn't specialize in the physical sciences, but even I know something called the "Scientific Method." I'm not one for "predictions", but even those should be based on observations. So here's one: Early on, Wingnuto adopted the strategy of all the most prolific psychobabblers on CAO: while aiming criticism at "ideological enemies," one must always blow a new soap bubble, directing attention to its iridescence, and when it, too, bursts, again accuse the genuine scientists whom you have slandered.
Econ		#47	[-]
(06/15/08 09:16 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Friend Request Blocking Visit My Community Ignore User's Posts	Here is another one for you, LWN and Brainy: Blumenthal T. (2004) Operons in eukaryotes. Briefings in functional genomics and proteomics. 3: 199-211. Operons breaking the rules For every rule in biology there is an exception. This causes problems in teaching. Do you give the rule and leave out the exception, effectively lying to the people you are teaching or do you give them the rule and exception and making rule mean much less? This is a real problem. Well I have just discovered eukaryotes have broken a golden. They have operons. I was always taught eukaryotes don't have operons, only prokaryotes do. For anyone needing to be reminded what an operon is it is several genes all on the same mRNA molecule. One name for this is polycistronic mRNA (cistron is an old name for what we know as a protein coding gene). Several genes have a single promoter and a terminator of transcription controlling them all. On this polycistronic mRNA are several Shine-Dalgarno sequences (bacterial ribosome binding sites) so a ribosome binds in front of each gene and translates it until it reaches a stop codon and falls off. The classic example is the lac operon. It makes 3 proteins used by E. coli to break down the sugar lactose. The reason why you would want a single promoter to control the expression of several proteins is because if they have related function like in the lac operon you want them all to be turned on at the same time and at the same level of expression therefore making the same number of proteins. Classically eukaryote have monocistronic mRNA (one gene per mRNA) but their is more to this story. Strange transcripts have been found in animals from the simple nematodes to complex mammals such as us. One type of mRNA that has been called operons by some people in C. elegans uses something called trans-splicing. A gene is expressed with one promoter but contains 2 protein coding regions. But this does not mature into a polycistronic mRNA but during RNA processing the introns (interons) are removed and the two coding regions are separated. But how does the downstream RNA resist degradation by RNases? It has a SL-exon from another transcript trans-spliced onto it. This way one 'gene' makes 2 mRNA (see diagram). This is not a conventional operon like those found in bacteria. This is not a minor thing in the nematodes genome - 15% of all genes in C. elegans are found in operons of this type. We still have monocistronic mRNA here so eukaryotes are behaving fairly well so far. But in Drosophila and higher organisms dicistronic mRNAs have been found. No trans-splicing involved what so ever. This is definitely breaking one of the golden rules in biology. Here a promoter causes the transcription of 2 genes onto the same transcript. Each one of these gets translated. It is unclear at the moment if both genes have there own ribosome intonation site are if the ribosome that translates the first gene also translates the second one by not falling off at the stop codon of the first gene. One example (that is conserved between man and mouse) is the dicistronic mRNA coding the growth and differentiation factor 1 (GDF-1) and a membrane protein of unknown function (UOG-1). Whether they are co-transcribed because they have related function is obviously unknown. Living creates are strange. We think we understand a bit about them, create rules that we think life follows so we can understand life better. But life doesn't always follow the rules we think it does. So the best we can do is make rules or models up and test them as this is how science works. I just hate it when something I thought I new turned out to be wrong. Hey, but let's keep playing boys....I hope people don't get the wrong impression about this old, conservative scientist being right...just because he is right....
Econ		#48	[-]
(06/15/08 09:21 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Friend Request Blocking Visit My Community Ignore User's Posts	Just to reinforce my original post for you: Cancer - defined as the loss of cell division control. It has been determined that it takes five to six mutations in one cell for cancer to occur. In the case of children fewer mutations are necessary. From 30 to 40 years of age those who develop cancer probably inherited a predisposition to cancer that allows the cells to develop cancerous conditions with fewer mutations. The most recent information indicates three types of mutation, all related to genomic control. Viruses cause less that 0.01% of cancers by gene insertion. a. Oncogenes - positive regulators (a switch turns on and stays on) that cause the acceleration of cell division b. Tumor suppressor genes - negative regulators (a switch is turned off) that cause the lack of function c. Mutator genes - cell normally corrects many errors that result from replication and protein synthesis. This mutation prevents self repair and increases the damage done by the oncogenes and suppressor mutations. DNA polymerase may be involved. References: Campbell, Neil, et al. 1993. Biology, 3d ed., The Benjamin Cummings Publishing Co. Micklos, David A. and Freyer, Greg, 1990. DNA Science, Cold Spring Harbor Press. Caskey, C. Thomas, M.D. April 21, 1993. "Molecular Medicine." JAMA. pp. 1986-91. Freedenberg, Debra M.D. June, 1994. "What Your Mother and Mendel Never Told You." Medical Grand Rounds, Scott and White Hospital. Temple, TX. Lewis, Ricki. 1994. Human Genetics Case Workbook. Brown Publishing. "Repeated to Death." January, 1994. Discover. p. 89-90 Alberts, Bruce, et al. 1994 The Molecular Biology of the Cell. 3rd edition, Garland Publishing. Petti, Mary A. and Terry, Susan, Gene Regulation Mechanisms, 1994 Woodrow Wilson Collection
leftwingnut		#49	[-]
(06/15/08 09:24 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Friend Request Blocking Visit My Community Ignore User's Posts	Unperennial Junior wrote: "Thus, in one version, Wingnuto himself prepared the experimental batch of seeds in Azerbaidzhan; in the other, it was his father who soaked the seeds, and they were his own. The first article referred to "a small batch" of seeds; in the second, the small batch had grown to "nearly 50 kilograms." (Some biologists have suggested that perhaps, when grain was being expropriated from the peasants during the collectivization campaign, Wingnuto's father concealed two sacks of seeds in the snow, the seeds became wet from the snow and sprouted; and, in the following spring, he planted them on the off chance that they would grow and mature.) Acccording to the first article, Wingnuto invited the Ukrainian Commissariat of Agriculture to visit the "experimental fields", whereas the second article says his father brought samples of the wheat to the commissariat, after which the commissariat sent a commission to Karlovka. Furthermore, in the July Pravda article, the vernalized seed had been sown on a plot of one and a half hectares; in an article that appeared in two different publications in 1932, Wingnuto wrote that the sowing had been on a half-hectare plot. There are also discrepancies in the figures for the yield obtained from this "experimental" sowing. In July, before the crop had been harvested, the commissariat's commission estimated the yield of spring-sown winter wheat at "nearly three metric tons per hectare. Shlikhter reported it, after the harvest, as having been "over two and a half tons per hectare." In later articles, Trofim Wingnuto spoke of 24 centners, or 2.4 metric tons- which would still be three and a half times the national average for spring wheat at that time. In 1935, Wingnuto soberly stated that, in the preceeding year, "the average increase in yield due to vernalization was 1.14 centners [0.114 metric tons] per hectare on the 1,060 kolkhozes that reported harvest data. That would be an increase of only about 15 percent over the 1928-1929 average. In the same year, Wingnuto pere spoke of increases of 3 centners per hectare in 1933, declining to 1.75 in 1934 and to 1.2 in 1935. This is no more than what might be expected. Consequently, we must regard the reports of a large harvest from vernalized winter wheat as false. Even if vernalization per se could increase yields, there are countervailing factors to be considered. First mold develops on moist grain. Second, in order to subject the sprouted seeds to cold and at the same time prevent overheating, the mass of seeds must be constantly turned, which inevitably would break many of the small, tender sprouts. As a result, there were fewer shoots to be germinated in the field, so that more seeds had to be sown. Moreover, it was impossible to achieve uniform treatment of all the seeds, particularly in the agricultural conditions of the time. Finally, although the plants grown from vernalized seeds may bear heavier ears than from seeds sown in the normal way, there are fewer of them. What all of this indicates is that there were no trustworthy data about the results of the "experiment". Indeed, it would not qualify as an experiment at all by the ordinary criteria of science. There were no comparisons between experimental and control samples, there was no repetition of the work, and there was no rigourous description in a scientific publication. I see... so UJ thinks my pointing out that his butt-buddy is a science illiterate is comparable to Lysenko denying Mendelian genetics... hmmm... To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. -Theodore Roosevelt, The Kansas City Star, May 7, 1918
leftwingnut		#50	[-]
(06/15/08 09:29 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Friend Request Blocking Visit My Community Ignore User's Posts	Econ wrote: leftwingnut wrote: Your explanation of the operon is just as I predicted you would claim in the thread where you completely misused the term. In fact, I defined operon in that thread, and pointed out how badly you had misused the term. Look, you're not dealing with a science illiterate like Wide-Stance Willard or UJ or Retardo here. Try again. Would you like me to revive the thread where you demonstrated your lack of understanding of freshman-level biology? Hey LWN - if you look in the article on OPERONS and INTERONS by the PhD author that I just posted for you HE defines OPERONS for you (not me). If it is exactly as you described I would say, then the PhD agrees with me and not you. Also, if you could read, you would see the following paragraph in the article: RNA splicing occurs when "gaps" of nonprotein-code-carrying nucleotides called interons are removed from the code-carrying nucleotides, called exons, which are then connected to shorten the RNA molecule for conversion into tRNA and rRNA. The number of interons regulates the speed at which the RNA can be processed. So interons were just something I made up, huh? Try again! Do you even understand what you are reading? As explained in the article, operons are protein sequences (genes) that are controlled by repressors (chemicals that keep them inactive). When the repressors are removed, the operon is active (switched on) and the RNA transfer process begins again (m-RNA, t-RNA and rRNA transfer - these carry gene segments as shown in the diagram provided). This is, it is theorized, the mechanism by which abnormal cell growth is initiated in metastatic tumors. This isn't at all controversial or incorrect, so I don't know what your problem is other than you just don't know what you are talking about and want to shoot your mouth off in the face of all evidence to the contrary. Very much like your opinions on the GITMO ruling that this thread is about. That is a TYPO of the word INTRON -- and I even pointed out in the original thread that you would, no doubt, backpedal and claim that introns were what you originally meant to say. At that time, I also pointed out that what you described in no way resembled an intron... in fact, here is what I said back then: And, in anticipation of this "scientist's" upcoming backpedaling, the description he gave for "interon" above does NOT conform to or describe in any way an intron... but, no doubt, this "scientist" will claim that is what he really meant... in spite of typing "interon" several times in his posting... Face it: you are a science illiterate. So, how about giving us the identity of your department, so we can do you proud and send that passage to them? To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. -Theodore Roosevelt, The Kansas City Star, May 7, 1918
leftwingnut		#51	[-]
(06/15/08 09:32 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Friend Request Blocking Visit My Community Ignore User's Posts	Econ wrote: leftwingnut wrote: Prediction: Right-wing science illiterates (is that a redundancy??) will all think Econ knows what he's talking about, because he posted something that explains what an operon is... Never mind that the context in which he used the term and the explanation he posted today bear absolutely no resemblance to each other... Intelligent people, on the other hand, will notice that the posting Econ the "biochemist" (snort) provided bears absolutely no resemblance to the way he originally used the term... and pretty much corresponds to how I used the term in the original thread.... There is absolutely no underestimating the stupidity of a right-wing moron.... Meanwhile, he will NEVER justify his invention of this whole interon nonsense.... As I posted above, the PhD geneticist who wrote the article apparently believes interons exist, too. Well, let's keep on exposing your idiocy. Definition for you: Animals, plants, fungi, and protists are eukaryotes (IPA: /juːˈkærɪɒt/ or IPA: /-oʊt/), organisms whose cells are organized into complex structures enclosed within membranes. That includes humans, moron. The article is ABOUT the Clever mechanisms turn genes off and on so that they only function when there is a need for their services. This switching on/off of RNA replication in cells is what has been developed into the theory that in animals (Eukaryotes, including humans, not prokaryotic bacteria) this causes abnormal cell growth - cancer. Did you get that now or do I need to spell it out for you? The interon exists (contrary to your statements) along with operons in humans and the interon (linked closely with repressor chemicals) regulates gene expression and recombination in the cells. How many more articles from PhDs that support what I said would you like me to forward? Because they all agree with me. You are out on a limb with a saw, buddy. But feel free to keep making yourself look stupid. It just shows to go you about your opinions - and serves to undermine anything you have to say. And here we have the backpedalling... in Econ the "scientist's" original posting, the chemicals that turned on or off genes were the operons and "interons"... and now he's pretending he didn't really mean that. Econ, being a right-winger, is dishonest to the core. What a scientifically illiterate moron. Typical right-wing know-nothing... To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. -Theodore Roosevelt, The Kansas City Star, May 7, 1918
leftwingnut		#52	[-]
(06/15/08 09:39 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Friend Request Blocking Visit My Community Ignore User's Posts	Econ wrote: Here is another one for you, LWN and Brainy: Blumenthal T. (2004) Operons in eukaryotes. Briefings in functional genomics and proteomics. 3: 199-211. Operons breaking the rules For every rule in biology there is an exception. This causes problems in teaching. Do you give the rule and leave out the exception, effectively lying to the people you are teaching or do you give them the rule and exception and making rule mean much less? This is a real problem. Well I have just discovered eukaryotes have broken a golden. They have operons. I was always taught eukaryotes don't have operons, only prokaryotes do. For anyone needing to be reminded what an operon is it is several genes all on the same mRNA molecule. One name for this is polycistronic mRNA (cistron is an old name for what we know as a protein coding gene). Several genes have a single promoter and a terminator of transcription controlling them all. On this polycistronic mRNA are several Shine-Dalgarno sequences (bacterial ribosome binding sites) so a ribosome binds in front of each gene and translates it until it reaches a stop codon and falls off. The classic example is the lac operon. It makes 3 proteins used by E. coli to break down the sugar lactose. The reason why you would want a single promoter to control the expression of several proteins is because if they have related function like in the lac operon you want them all to be turned on at the same time and at the same level of expression therefore making the same number of proteins. Classically eukaryote have monocistronic mRNA (one gene per mRNA) but their is more to this story. Strange transcripts have been found in animals from the simple nematodes to complex mammals such as us. One type of mRNA that has been called operons by some people in C. elegans uses something called trans-splicing. A gene is expressed with one promoter but contains 2 protein coding regions. But this does not mature into a polycistronic mRNA but during RNA processing the introns (interons) are removed and the two coding regions are separated. But how does the downstream RNA resist degradation by RNases? It has a SL-exon from another transcript trans-spliced onto it. This way one 'gene' makes 2 mRNA (see diagram). This is not a conventional operon like those found in bacteria. This is not a minor thing in the nematodes genome - 15% of all genes in C. elegans are found in operons of this type. We still have monocistronic mRNA here so eukaryotes are behaving fairly well so far. But in Drosophila and higher organisms dicistronic mRNAs have been found. No trans-splicing involved what so ever. This is definitely breaking one of the golden rules in biology. Here a promoter causes the transcription of 2 genes onto the same transcript. Each one of these gets translated. It is unclear at the moment if both genes have there own ribosome intonation site are if the ribosome that translates the first gene also translates the second one by not falling off at the stop codon of the first gene. One example (that is conserved between man and mouse) is the dicistronic mRNA coding the growth and differentiation factor 1 (GDF-1) and a membrane protein of unknown function (UOG-1). Whether they are co-transcribed because they have related function is obviously unknown. Living creates are strange. We think we understand a bit about them, create rules that we think life follows so we can understand life better. But life doesn't always follow the rules we think it does. So the best we can do is make rules or models up and test them as this is how science works. I just hate it when something I thought I new turned out to be wrong. Hey, but let's keep playing boys....I hope people don't get the wrong impression about this old, conservative scientist being right...just because he is right.... Once again -- I pointed out that operons are foind in bacteri AND SOMER LOWER EUKAROTES in the original thread. Humans are NOT a lower eukaryote. And, once again,. I used the term operon c0orrectly, even providing the correct definition in the origina thread. You did not. Nobody is fooled (well, maybe UJ is...) by your backpedaling, NOR by your dishonestly adding "interon" in parentheses, as though it is an acceptable spelling of the REAL term "intron," which is not what you described in your original posting, anyway. Here is the original of that Operon article, folks -- see how Econ the dihonest science illiterate has doctered it to make it appear "interon" is a real term... You are a moron. A dishonest one. Go away. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. -Theodore Roosevelt, The Kansas City Star, May 7, 1918
leftwingnut		#53	[-]
(06/15/08 09:41 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Friend Request Blocking Visit My Community Ignore User's Posts	Econ wrote: Just to reinforce my original post for you: Cancer - defined as the loss of cell division control. It has been determined that it takes five to six mutations in one cell for cancer to occur. In the case of children fewer mutations are necessary. From 30 to 40 years of age those who develop cancer probably inherited a predisposition to cancer that allows the cells to develop cancerous conditions with fewer mutations. The most recent information indicates three types of mutation, all related to genomic control. Viruses cause less that 0.01% of cancers by gene insertion. a. Oncogenes - positive regulators (a switch turns on and stays on) that cause the acceleration of cell division b. Tumor suppressor genes - negative regulators (a switch is turned off) that cause the lack of function c. Mutator genes - cell normally corrects many errors that result from replication and protein synthesis. This mutation prevents self repair and increases the damage done by the oncogenes and suppressor mutations. DNA polymerase may be involved. References: Campbell, Neil, et al. 1993. Biology, 3d ed., The Benjamin Cummings Publishing Co. Micklos, David A. and Freyer, Greg, 1990. DNA Science, Cold Spring Harbor Press. Caskey, C. Thomas, M.D. April 21, 1993. "Molecular Medicine." JAMA. pp. 1986-91. Freedenberg, Debra M.D. June, 1994. "What Your Mother and Mendel Never Told You." Medical Grand Rounds, Scott and White Hospital. Temple, TX. Lewis, Ricki. 1994. Human Genetics Case Workbook. Brown Publishing. "Repeated to Death." January, 1994. Discover. p. 89-90 Alberts, Bruce, et al. 1994 The Molecular Biology of the Cell. 3rd edition, Garland Publishing. Petti, Mary A. and Terry, Susan, Gene Regulation Mechanisms, 1994 Woodrow Wilson Collection Which, of course, bears LITTLE resemblance to what you originally posted. This is simply a backpedaling exercise. Stay in skool, kids -- or you end up like Econ the "scientists" here... posting garbage and then backpedaling mightily... To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. -Theodore Roosevelt, The Kansas City Star, May 7, 1918
leftwingnut		#54	[-]
(06/15/08 09:44 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Friend Request Blocking Visit My Community Ignore User's Posts	Econ wrote: leftwingnut wrote: Hey, Econ -- where'd you get your biochem degree?... I'd like to email your explanation of cancer to your department... colleges are always looking for assessment material, including evidence that their alums are successful... Well, since I was TA to the PhD geneticist in our department that was working in this theory, I believe he would be OK with it. As you can see in the article, an operon is exactly as I described it - in simplified form for you in my prior posts. This doesn't describe the activities of operons, repressors and interons in abnormal cell growth but it is the same general process. Why don't you put down the shovel and stop digging? Your hole is deep enough already. Hey, Econ -- you seem so proud of your original posting... let's send it off to your profs at whatever diploma mill you attended... guffaw How about it? To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. -Theodore Roosevelt, The Kansas City Star, May 7, 1918
Econ		#55	[-]
(06/15/08 10:53 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Friend Request Blocking Visit My Community Ignore User's Posts	Hey LWN - if you look in the article on OPERONS and INTERONS by the PhD author that I just posted for you HE defines OPERONS for you (not me). If it is exactly as you described I would say, then the PhD agrees with me and not you. Also, if you could read, you would see the following paragraph in the article: RNA splicing occurs when "gaps" of nonprotein-code-carrying nucleotides called interons are removed from the code-carrying nucleotides, called exons, which are then connected to shorten the RNA molecule for conversion into tRNA and rRNA. The number of interons regulates the speed at which the RNA can be processed. So interons were just something I made up, huh? Try again! Do you even understand what you are reading? As explained in the article, operons are protein sequences (genes) that are controlled by repressors (chemicals that keep them inactive). When the repressors are removed, the operon is active (switched on) and the RNA transfer process begins again (m-RNA, t-RNA and rRNA transfer - these carry gene segments as shown in the diagram provided). This is, it is theorized, the mechanism by which abnormal cell growth is initiated in metastatic tumors. This isn't at all controversial or incorrect, so I don't know what your problem is other than you just don't know what you are talking about and want to shoot your mouth off in the face of all evidence to the contrary. Very much like your opinions on the GITMO ruling that this thread is about. That is a TYPO of the word INTRON -- and I even pointed out in the original thread that you would, no doubt, backpedal and claim that introns were what you originally meant to say. At that time, I also pointed out that what you described in no way resembled an intron... in fact, here is what I said back then: And, in anticipation of this "scientist's" upcoming backpedaling, the description he gave for "interon" above does NOT conform to or describe in any way an intron... but, no doubt, this "scientist" will claim that is what he really meant... in spite of typing "interon" several times in his posting... Face it: you are a science illiterate. So, how about giving us the identity of your department, so we can do you proud and send that passage to them? If you would check the current literature, you would find that the operons cited were in humans, nutjob - check out current cancer theory with various publications in the Journal of Microbiology in May of this year. While 25 years ago this theory was more controversial, it is rather well established now. While the operons are distributed across the human gene sequence, they operate in the same way. Jeez but you are a hard headed idiot. Just try WIKI or Google for goodness sakes and save me the bother of trying to educate you. How many times to intron and interon come up in literature if you Google them? Your assertion was that I made it up....so you were wrong. You were also wrong about how it was used. The interons are linked to the repressor chemicals that inhibit gene sequencing - and all of these are amino acids, you know, proteins? You can speak in terms of organic chemistry when referring to these processes just as you can refer to genetic transferase processes. I don't know where or if you even studied genetics but it becoming increasingly suspect that you have gone beyond elementary biology.
Econ		#56	[-]
(10/15/72 03:13 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Friend Request Blocking Visit My Community Ignore User's Posts	And here we have the backpedalling... in Econ the "scientist's" original posting, the chemicals that turned on or off genes were the operons and "interons"... and now he's pretending he didn't really mean that. Econ, being a right-winger, is dishonest to the core. What a scientifically illiterate moron. Typical right-wing know-nothing... No, moron, you have poor reading comprehension: I said the operon was the "switch" - there are various activators and repressors (repressors being linked to the interon) - that affect this series of genes (which in higher order eukaryotes are spread across the gene sequence). These genes are also expressed as a series of amino acids, as I have pointed out, and can be addressed in terms of the chemical processes that occur. Activators and repressors turn this switch on or off -as shown in the materials I posted for you. So perhaps you should contact all the academics I just posted for you that share my definitions and opinions - as I posted. All we have from you is your bluster and hyperbole. How about some backup big boy - I'm having an easy time finding mine!
Econ		#57	[-]
(06/15/08 11:14 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Friend Request Blocking Visit My Community Ignore User's Posts	So, Left wing nut, emphasis on the nut - you need to provide something to back up your BS. I have provided scientific articles to back up the my discussion of the operation of biochemical switches (on and off) in eukaryotic organisms, including humans, the existence of operons and interons in humans and their relationship to these on/off switches in current cancer theory (through protooncogenes and cellular mutation). I have provided you numerous citations in scientific literature of interons - which you say isn't a scientific term or some such BS. So bluster all you like, but you have been shown to be a blow hard. Anyone here who can Google knows it... As this relates to your posts on my knowledge of cellular biology and the Constitution, since you were proven so wrong, I would submit "Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus". The problem is not in your beliefs, but letting your beliefs corrupt your logical faculties and reasoning. Therefore what you "believe" to be true is the only truth - all evidence to the contrary.
Unperennial Junior		#58	[-]
(06/15/08 11:24 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Friend Request Blocking Visit My Community Ignore User's Posts	You were right, 99. It is "a poisonous flaming pustule of an asshole." Too bad Ev never could see an issue fairly.
Unperennial Junior		#59	[-]
(06/15/08 11:57 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Friend Request Blocking Visit My Community Ignore User's Posts	And by golly, I might win a Nobel for discovering its DNA sequence: LWNLWNLWNLWNLWNLWNLWNLWNLWNLWNLWNLWNLWNLWNLWNLWNLWNLWNLWN..............LWN.
leftwingnut		#60	[-]
(06/15/08 01:59 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Friend Request Blocking Visit My Community Ignore User's Posts	I provided plenty of proof in the original thread that Econ the "scientist" (guffaw) had no idea what he was talking about. Econ the "scientist (guffaw) is clearly too uninformed to understand how terribly wrong he has it all... like most right-wingers, he is both ineducable AND too self-unaware to understand how wrong he has the science. I sure would love to send his original posting to his old professors, though! But, at this point, there is no point in continuing. The right-wingers will believe he has made some point here, and the thinking people will know better. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. -Theodore Roosevelt,

Live Weather Stations: East Gloucester \| Rockport \| Sandy Bay Yacht Club \| GoMOOS Buoy
Gloucester Inner Harbor	Sandy Bay Yacht Club	Sandy Bay Yacht Club	Lanes Cove

Yuku free message boards

email admin - Cape Ann Web (capeannweb@yahoo.com) | Cape Ann Web Home

Shout Box

Local Bloggers

Supreme Ct: Gitmo detainees have rights in US courts. AP,10:27am