Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8891 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-20-2019 9:29 PM
158 online now:
DrJones*, marc9000, Tanypteryx (3 members, 155 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Upcoming Birthdays: CosmicChimp
Post Volume:
Total: 847,741 Year: 2,778/19,786 Month: 860/1,918 Week: 147/301 Day: 30/35 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123456
7
Author Topic:   How well do we understand DNA?
christian atheist
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 98 (184970)
02-13-2005 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by crashfrog
02-08-2005 10:45 AM


Re: Broken Genes
Will will ever understand DNA enough to be able to fix it? I remember in High School, we had enzymes that would cut DNA at certain parts which allowed us to sequence a part of it.

Couldn't we cut out that stop codon and put it in the right place? Then we could put the fixed gene into an egg.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by crashfrog, posted 02-08-2005 10:45 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by NosyNed, posted 02-13-2005 8:08 PM christian atheist has not yet responded
 Message 93 by pink sasquatch, posted 02-13-2005 8:24 PM christian atheist has not yet responded
 Message 94 by crashfrog, posted 02-14-2005 3:46 PM christian atheist has responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8829
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 92 of 98 (184977)
02-13-2005 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by christian atheist
02-13-2005 7:51 PM


Gene Therapy
Will will ever understand DNA enough to be able to fix it? I remember in High School, we had enzymes that would cut DNA at certain parts which allowed us to sequence a part of it.

It has already been done.

Try a google on "gene therapy". It isn't working well right now but we have experimented with it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by christian atheist, posted 02-13-2005 7:51 PM christian atheist has not yet responded

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 4070 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 93 of 98 (184984)
02-13-2005 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by christian atheist
02-13-2005 7:51 PM


Re: Broken Genes
Will will ever understand DNA enough to be able to fix it?

Yes, as this sort of process has been done literally thousands of times in mice and other mammals. There's obviously ethical concerns to consider in humans as well, and there may be unexpected harmful side effects to fixing the "Vitamin C" gene, since our species has evolved without it for so long.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by christian atheist, posted 02-13-2005 7:51 PM christian atheist has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 98 (185207)
02-14-2005 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by christian atheist
02-13-2005 7:51 PM


Couldn't we cut out that stop codon and put it in the right place?

It's not quite that simple; there's control genes that regulate expression of genes. Control genes that currently have this gene turned off. We'd have to turn those back on, and we don't know enough about them to know how to do that. Lord only knows what we might activate by mistake. The vast, vast majority of your chromosomes are genetic information from viruses, etc.

And why bother? I love eating citrus. We wouldn't have the broken gene in the first place if we couldn't get away with not having it, via diet.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by christian atheist, posted 02-13-2005 7:51 PM christian atheist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by christian atheist, posted 02-14-2005 6:09 PM crashfrog has not yet responded
 Message 96 by christian atheist, posted 02-14-2005 6:09 PM crashfrog has not yet responded
 Message 98 by Godfearingatheist, posted 08-28-2005 5:12 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
christian atheist
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 98 (185266)
02-14-2005 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by crashfrog
02-14-2005 3:46 PM


double post

This message has been edited by christian atheist, 02-14-2005 16:11 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by crashfrog, posted 02-14-2005 3:46 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
christian atheist
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 98 (185267)
02-14-2005 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by crashfrog
02-14-2005 3:46 PM


Well, I can think of 2 reasons to restore the gene. One, if we restore it in Guinea Pigs, we create an easier to take care of pet. Two, if we restore it in humans, it'd punish the orange industry for keeping the Utah Utes out of the Orange Bowl, which they so rightly deserved.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by crashfrog, posted 02-14-2005 3:46 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1669 days)
Posts: 1154
From: San Diego, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 97 of 98 (199144)
04-14-2005 4:34 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by crashfrog
01-23-2005 11:06 AM


The sentence that I wrote was ambiguous, and you found an unintended (albeit interesting) meaning in it. WK took that and ran with it--turned out pretty interesting.

Anyway, my intended meaning was MUCH less interesting. I've changed it in the original post.

Or to determine that there are no proteins being transcribed from this sequence in another way.

now changed to

Or to determine, in another way, that there are no proteins being transcribed from this sequence.

I gave 'knocking out the gene' as one example to determine that no proteins are being transcribed from some gene. With the sentence above, I was just trying to say "I don't know all the ways we can determine that no proteins are being transcribed from a single gene."

Yes, I'm sweeping through my old threads. So no need to follow up. Just thought it's good to clear it up. Thanks for picking up on the ambiguity, I learned something about transcription that I didn't know before.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by crashfrog, posted 01-23-2005 11:06 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

    
Godfearingatheist
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 98 (238053)
08-28-2005 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by crashfrog
02-14-2005 3:46 PM


**allow the testing of their hybridization properties**
Amplifcation of ancient DNA is done using standard PCR techniques, but withthe inclusion of numerous extraction and amplifcation negative controls and the use of a large number of 'amplifcation' cycles. The PCR products are analyzed differently with ancient-DNA

As to the previous point:No How are creationists seen as a contributing to the understanding of these areas of consideration What can we say, are they even trusting labs or what?!?
Research too oftenly was sluffed over or given a gross over simplication? Seeing this is the case, wouldn't it boarder interpretational dishonesty ? For me to engage anyone on subjects as technical as these without first attempting to gain a better understanding (particularly when it touches on a controversial analyses) shows an disasterousness towards [the body of] data ..
Laboratoire de Biologie Moléculaire du Génome Eukaryote writes:

..fossils are always contaminated (the majority of which are unknown) the use of fossil extracts as probes does not allow the testing of their hybridization properties .. In the stability of human-chimpanzee DNA hybrids. DNAs were applied on a nylon membrane and were hybridized with human and chimpanzee DNA ..as probes

*******************************************************
Hasn't crashfrog addressed a larger subject:
IMO 'It's not quite that simple ...we don't know enough..[/]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by crashfrog, posted 02-14-2005 3:46 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Prev123456
7
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019