Biology - July 2007

Anything healthwise or biological???

2007-07-16 04:37:02 · 6 answers · asked by topink 6

5'---ATACCAGCCACTAGTCA-->Antisense strand
3'---TATGGTCGGTGATCAGT-->Sense Strand

2007-07-16 04:22:39 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-07-16 02:30:21 · 14 answers · asked by TheNewCreationist 5

a Filipino

2007-07-16 00:32:10 · 1 answers · asked by irina 1

If a fly is placed inside a vehicle and the vehicle starts moving, the fly remains stable as if its also flying at the same phase of the car, but if it is placed outside the car, it flies steadily.

2007-07-16 00:23:26 · 2 answers · asked by monicakryzelle_fortes 4

2007-07-15 22:26:59 · 2 answers · asked by ladyzbugs 1

2007-07-15 22:13:48 · 4 answers · asked by ladyzbugs 1

One group of these is _________________.

2007-07-15 22:03:44 · 4 answers · asked by ladyzbugs 1

into amphibians and then ALL land vertebrates (including man) then why has it and it's genetic code remained stable for 360 million years? And when in 1938 a living coelacanth was found why did scientists try and squeeze another fish from the same group (meaning not much different from the living one)into their theory even though there was no strong scientific evidence that it fit any better than the previous fossil? Isn't that backward thinking? Shouldn't you have proof before you come up with a theory? It seems to me that scientists have a theory and when the outcome isn't what proves their theory true, they just come up with another "guess" to make it work. I wouldn't mind if there was evidence for evolution but there isn't any. All of the old icons of evolution have been proven untrue but since there is no real scientific proof of how we got here the scientists just hold on to what they've got.

2007-07-15 21:10:45 · 4 answers · asked by question asker 4

improve her condition?( It is important to note that Maria is allergic to eggs and dairy products)

2007-07-15 20:47:33 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-07-15 20:41:56 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous

State why you think it's true or false.

2007-07-15 20:30:19 · 3 answers · asked by anniN 1

2007-07-15 18:53:40 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous

In Apocalypto, there is a scene where people are being sacrificed. The guy gets his body jabbed with a knife, and his heart pulled out. He stares at his heart in absolute shock.

I thought from the sheer pain of getting your heart cut out, you would die instantly.

Is that possible to still be alive, even while your heart is outside of your body? Even if it's for about a few seconds?

2007-07-15 17:33:07 · 10 answers · asked by Joey T 3

I.e. All these health problems, I would guess that evolution would have weeded out all the maladaptive individuals! i know that it takes millions of years to evolve but I don't have that much time, I want to see the evolution of the humans soon.

2007-07-15 16:47:57 · 17 answers · asked by Ricky R 1

If we supposedly evolved from primates, how come there are still non-human monkeys and apes to this day and they are not humans.

2007-07-15 16:42:35 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

Please help with an ongoing argument between my husband and me.... We are both blondes with blue eyes (mine dark, his very light, even blonde eyelashes). My father has red hair and blue eyes, and my mother is a brunette with brown eyes. His father has light brown hair, and his mother is blonde with blue eyes. I think the chance is there for a redheaded child, (because of my dad and also several family members on my paternal side) however hubby insists that he also has to have a history of red hair in his family for it to happen (which there is none). For the first year of my life I was strawberry blonde (heavy on the strawberry), then it turned the color I have now. Is it possible to have a redhead or do I have to eat crow and tell him he's right - the only possibility for our child is blonde hair and blue eyes?

2007-07-15 16:20:10 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

....

2007-07-15 15:44:26 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous

If scientists manage 2 find cures or vacines for evrything, what would hapen 2 the population?
1) If all these cures were shared with developing countries 2. Would it not jus cause more sufering? Contraception is frequently not acepted. Or jus condoms, hardly reliable alone.
2) Isn't disease like cancer etc a natural way of population control?
3) Would developed countries go into meltdown 2, could it harm humanity? Enforced infertility/dictatorship everywhere!
4) When humans mes with biology, does it not just cause more problems CJD, bird flu etc?

I'm personaly against embryo & animal testing, partly bcos we r animals 2. But we know others feel pain/can die.
It will seem 2 mean yet more abortions for the ignorant. Alowing them 2 murder humans, by fact made the second sperm enters an egg & should b granted human rights as such. Life not poluted by society always wants 2 live. Those lucky enuf 2 b born, should b thankful they got to b. Ur self importance is jus a state of mind

2007-07-15 15:26:53 · 10 answers · asked by frosti 2

Which statement best describes this statement?

this statement is incorrect because the animals must supply the detritus for the decomposition process that supports plants
b. this statement is incorrect because animals produce the carbon dioxide that plants use in photosynthesis
c. plants can't reproduce without the energy of animals, and animals cannot reproduce without the energy of plants
d. plants are able to convert sun energy into food energy and animals generally cannot do this
e. animals cannot survive without eating plants, but plants can survive alone

2007-07-15 14:04:25 · 13 answers · asked by ElDarado05 2

a. Acetyl Co. A:inside
b. NADPH:at the membrane of
c.pyruvate:outside
d.pyruvate: inside
e.Acetyl Co.A:outside
f.none of the above

2007-07-15 13:57:21 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous

If you are an evolutionist, you believe that natural processes formed all present life from chemicals to one-celled organisms through stages of "higher" organisms, culminating in humans, and furthermore, that this process, being driven by natural selection and random chance, took billions of years, and therefore the Earth and the whole universe is several billion years old. I'm going to describe eight specific reasons why the theory of evolution is seriously flawed and why an intelligent Creator must have designed and created the universe.

1. Information Theory
One important argument against evolution is the fact that information always requires an intelligent mind. It appears to be a real law of nature that information can never develop of its own accord. It is like the way a book is much more than just the paper and ink that comprises its physical form. The information inside it can only be produced (and then understood and used) by an intelligent being. The information in books is intended to be conveyed to another intelligent being.

Life itself also contains information. All life contains the genetic information to both make it run and, under the right circumstances, reproduce itself. Linguistics shows that DNA is literally a language containing four letters, and comparisons to computer science show that DNA is the most compact form of information that we know of, more compact that any form of data storage that humans have made. Originally, this information had to come from an intelligent being.

2. Mutations and Variation of Species
According to evolution, mutations are supposed to be the mechanism by which species evolve new traits and become more complex. However, genetics has shown that mutations are almost always harmful and always destroy information rather than creating it. As point 1 shows, information has to come from an intelligent being, and so natural mutations cannot create genetic information that is not already in the genetic code. Individual members of a species exhibit various ranges of their traits, and traits can even be bred to extremes, as we have done with many different varieties of dogs, but all dogs are still dogs and still produce dogs, and they all (except for possible inconvenient size differences) can interbreed. And if breeders attempt to breed the most extreme value of a trait, they usually find a genetic limit on how far they can take it. A dog will not grow as large as an elephant even if breeders keep breeding the largest dogs, for example.

Extreme variation of a species can produce a group that cannot interbreed with the original group, but while this is a new species by the definition that different species cannot normally interbreed, this is still just a subset of the original group, not an entirely different creature. This variation does happen, and is sometimes called micro-evolution, but this is most definitely not proof for macro-evolution, the changing of one species into another species. This shows that evolutionists' efforts to use such examples as the peppered moths, Galapagos finches, and fruit flies is futile, as these are all examples of variation within a species and not evidence for anything more.

3. The Second Law of Thermodynamics
The second law of thermodynamics itself opposes evolution also. Evolution says that natural selection will select for traits that make the creature more suited to its environment and also more complex. A better working creature has more complexity and less randomness, correct? This is despite the fact that the mutations are random? (Why do we say "descent" and "descendants" if ancestors are supposed to be lower forms of life than their descendants?) The second law essentially says that energy becomes less and less available in a system and entropy is always increasing. In other words, disordered states are much more likely than ordered states, so a natural system left to itself will always move toward a more chaotic state, not a more ordered state.

4. Embryological Development
Evolutionists often talk about "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" and claim that human embryos go through the stages of evolution as they develop in the womb. I was taught that in high school biology as well, but that idea actually originated solely from some drawings of embryos that Ernst Haeckel drew in the 19th century. Fairly recently, it's been brought to light that he faked those drawings. Modern imaging techniques show that animal embryos look very different from each other and from human embryos. Have you ever seen pictures of human embryos? By eight weeks or so, the general shape is all there in miniature: head, body, limbs, looking nothing like an animal. The early development probably looks similar to other vertebrates to some extent, but ultimately, small differences early on become magnified as the embryo grows, until the different features are clearly apparent, and these differences form a unique pattern of development for each kind of life. And an embryo must start from a single cell because an egg is a single cell. That says nothing about descent from single-celled organisms.

5. Chemical Complexity
There are serious chemical problems with the beginning of evolution, meaning the formation of the first amino acids and such compounds of life from a mixture of chemicals. One simple problem is the fact that randomly-forming amino acids will be an equal mixture of left-handed and right-handed molecules, but every single amino acid used in living things today is left-handed. Right-handed amino acids do not work in the bodies of living things. This chirality cannot be the product of natural random processes.

A second chemical problem is that of reactivity. Proteins are formed from a very specific sequence of many amino acids (all of which must be left-handed, of course), but these sequences do not correspond at all to the reactivity of the amino acids with each other. In a randomly-forming protein, the most reactive amino acids will bind together first, and then less reactive ones later. Also, there are many different orders of the same amino acids due to the way they could bind to either end of the chain. Producing a specific protein for a specific function randomly is mathematically and chemically impossible even without the chirality problem.

6. Probability
Not only are there real chemical problems with the idea that the necessary building blocks for life formed by themselves and assembled themselves into a living cell, the whole idea is mind-numbingly improbable. By improbable, I don't mean "unlikely, but possible by a remote chance." I mean that the probability against it is so high that it is literally impossible. Even the probability that the correct sequences of amino acids could come together to form a working cell is almost literally zero, let alone form more complex living things.

7. Transitional Forms
If creatures evolved gradually over time, then there must be many transitional forms between fully formed creatures. However, almost all fossils appear with fully formed features. Some fossils are of creatures that no longer exist, so they are unfamiliar to us compared to existing creatures, but they are still fully functional. If creatures really evolved, then there must be many times the number of transitional forms than fully-formed creatures, but the fossil record does not show this. Darwin probably just assumed that people had not found enough fossils yet, and future fossils would support his ideas, but despite the wealth of fossils that have been found since then, this plethora of transitional forms has not been found.

Note that I'm not even talking about how well fossils make sequences without all the "missing links," just that the ratio of transitional forms to fully-formed creatures is much lower than it should be if evolution were correct (it is probably close to zero, in fact). Even the forms we now think are transitional are probably just creatures we don't understand yet.

8. Vestigial organs
Years ago, biologists thought that living things had many different organs and parts that were the remnants of functioning parts from the past but currently served no known function. Some examples from humans are the appendix and the tonsils, both of which are now known to play a role in the immune system. Of course, not knowing a function does not prove there is no function: there can always be a function that we do not understand yet. Most of the other historically vestigial parts are also known to have functions now as well. Evolutionists try to use supposedly vestigial parts as evidence for evolution, but even if there were any vestigial parts, the change is in the wrong direction. If anything, these parts would have devolved from something functioning to something non-functioning. Again, this is a loss of information and hardly support for macro-evolution.

Conclusion
I hope the preceding points have given you some idea of the grave problems that evolutionists have encountered when trying to fit the physical evidence to their theory. Not only does the fossil record not support the theory, but several individual scientific laws directly contradict it! Furthermore, while natural selection as a method of genetic variation within a species has certainly been observed both inside and outside of the lab, neither macro-evolution (one species turning into another) nor spontaneous generation (living cells or organisms appearing from non-living chemical matter) has ever been observed. Evolution is scientifically impossible and only continues to be supported by evolutionists due to blind faith in their theory.

2007-07-15 13:33:20 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous

Die?

After the moment you die... then what happens?

2007-07-15 12:43:53 · 7 answers · asked by A 2

This has been plaguing me for a while. In the show, "Little People, Big World" the Roloff Family is comprised of two dwarf parents, one dwarf son, and three normal size children. Now from what I've learned in genetics class (and my little internet research) dwarfism comes from a recessive gene. That means that for someone to be a dwarf phenotypically, they have to possess two dwarf genes and no "normal size" genes, because even one "normal size" gene will result in the child being of normal size. But the Roloffs, who are both dwarfs, have not one, but THREE normal sized kids.

How is this genetically possible?

2007-07-15 12:32:38 · 9 answers · asked by rjxxl 2

What distinguishes the different 'species' of animals on the GalapagosIslands (or anywhere on Earth for that matter)?


a. A species is distinguished by the complexity of DNA.
b. A species is distinguished by only body shape and size
c. A species is distinguished by body shape, size and internal organ
arrangement
d. A species is distinguished by whether or not it can reproduce with
other animals of the same species.

2007-07-15 12:20:33 · 5 answers · asked by Kat Von D 2

Or places nearer or around the equator,especially around places like rainforests,which are hot and humid?

2007-07-15 12:13:07 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous

I need to know pretty quickly, I'm in the middle of a timed exam.
Thanks!

2007-07-15 09:20:31 · 4 answers · asked by soccer_girl 1

a) conducts water downward in the plant
b) transports food upward in the plant
c) transports water and minerals
d) tranfers materials from stem to leaf


*[I'm thinking it's B ... what do you guys think??]

2007-07-15 06:55:03 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-07-15 06:54:58 · 2 answers · asked by jahtiger 1

My parents are both one of 12. My mum is healthy and so are most of her brothers and sisters, but my dad isn't particularly and neither are (were) his brothers/sisters - heart disease, stroke and cancer have taken most of them. They both had relatively similar upbringings - poor with not much to go round. I have a similar look and body-shape (unfortunatley as I am a woman) to my dad so could that mean I have my mum's half of my genes in my physiological make up? Or am I just fooling myself?

2007-07-15 06:52:31 · 8 answers · asked by Maz R 2