Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Mutation

2007-09-05T21:12:38Z

Tims: /* Types of Mutations */ Added sickle hemoglobin example.

In [[biology]]''' mutation''' is any physical change in the [[genetic material]] of an [[organism]]. In most cases this is either the [[DNA]] or [[RNA]] in the cell [[nucleus]]. In multicellular organisms there are two primary classes of mutation, [[germline mutations]] and [[somatic mutations]]. Germline mutations are those changes that can be passed down to offspring, while somatic mutations are mutations that only alter genetic material in the mutated organism. There is some evidence that changes outside of the cell's genetic material, such as the [[cytoplasm]], [[proteins]], or the cell [[membrane]] can also be inherited.

Mutations can be caused by internal or external factors. Common external factors include [[ultraviolet]] radiation, chemical [[mutagens]], or parasitic organisms (such as [[viruses]] or [[bacteria]]). Most internal causes of mutations stem from errors in reproduction of genetic material. Most of these errors are corrected by error-correcting [[ribosomes]].

Some organisms will respond to harsh environments by increasing the rate of mutations. This is known as [[hypermutation]] and is hypothesized to aid organisms by creating wider variation in the [[gene pool]] of the population, increasing the chances that at least some decedents might survive under harsh conditions.

==Types of Mutations==

'''Morphological mutants''' affect the outward appearance of an individual. Plant height mutations could changes a tall plant to a short one, or from having smooth to round seeds. '''Biochemical mutations''' have a lesion in one specific step of an enzymatic pathway. For bacteria, biochemical mutants need to be grown on a media supplemented with a specific nutrient. Such mutants are called auxotrophs. Often though, morphological mutants are the direct result of a mutation in a biochemical pathway. In humans, albinism is the result of a mutation in the pathway from converts the amino acid tyrosine to the skin pigment melanin. Similarly, cretinism results when the tyrosine to thyroxine pathway is mutated. Therefore, in a strict genetic sense, if appropriate experiments are performed, a morphological mutation can be explained at the biochemical level.

For some mutations to be expressed, the individual needs to be placed in a specific environment. This is called the restrictive condition. But if the individual grow in any other environment (permissive condition), the wild type phenotype is expressed. These are called conditional mutations. Mutations that only expressed at a specific temperature (temperature sensitive mutants), usually elevated, can be considered to be conditional mutations.

'''Lethal mutations''' are mutations that lead to the death of the individual. Death does not have to occur immediately, it may take several months or even years. But if the expected longevity of an individual is significantly reduced, the mutation is considered a lethal mutation.

Wild type alleles typically encode a product necessary for a specific biological function. If a mutation occurs in that allele, the function for which it encodes is also lost. The general term for these mutations is loss-of-function mutations. The degree to which the function is lost can vary. If the function is entirely lost, the mutation is called a null mutation. If is also possible that some function may remain, but not at the level of the wild type allele. These are called leaky mutations.

'''Loss of function mutations''' are typically recessive. When a heterozygote consists of the wild-type allele and the loss-of-function allele, the level of expression of the wild type allele is often sufficient to produce the wild type phenotype. Genetically this would define the loss-of-function mutation as recessive. Alternatively, the wild type allele may not compensate for the loss-of-function allele. In those cases, the phenotype of the heterozygote will be equal to that of the loss-of-function mutant, and the mutant allele will act as a dominant.

Gain-of-function mutations create a new allele that is associated with a new function. Any heterozygote containing the new allele along with the original wild type allele will express the new allele. Genetically this will define the mutation as a dominant. A primary example of this is the sickle hemoglobin, where the function of the hemoglobin has changed in a way to be not conducive to malaria parasites.

==References==
Biology (7th Edition). Neil A. Campbell,Jane B. Reece. http://www.amazon.com/Biology-7th-Neil-Campbell/dp/080537146X.

[[Category:Biology]]

Talk:Mutation

2007-09-05T21:05:28Z

Tims: Sickle hemoglobin is and example of a gain of function mutation

Is there a reason why the TOE paragraph is at the top instead of the paragraph explaining what mutations are?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 22:27, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

There are some serious mistakes in this article. First off, RNA is not found in the nucleus of the cell unless its mRNA, and in that case would not be mutated or affect the genetic makeup of the organism in question. mRNA is copied from the DNA structure itself and thus cannot alter DNA. Second, ribosomes are not responsible for correcting the DNA structure, they are responsible for protein synthesis and production of tRNA. It should also be mentioned that most mutations have no effect on the codons read to synthesis proteins due to similar 3 base codes.

==Gain-of-Function Mutations==

Sickle hemoglobin is a gain of function mutation Conservative.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 17:05, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

Mutation

2007-09-05T20:56:30Z

Tims:

In [[biology]]''' mutation''' is any physical change in the [[genetic material]] of an [[organism]]. In most cases this is either the [[DNA]] or [[RNA]] in the cell [[nucleus]]. In multicellular organisms there are two primary classes of mutation, [[germline mutations]] and [[somatic mutations]]. Germline mutations are those changes that can be passed down to offspring, while somatic mutations are mutations that only alter genetic material in the mutated organism. There is some evidence that changes outside of the cell's genetic material, such as the [[cytoplasm]], [[proteins]], or the cell [[membrane]] can also be inherited.

Mutations can be caused by internal or external factors. Common external factors include [[ultraviolet]] radiation, chemical [[mutagens]], or parasitic organisms (such as [[viruses]] or [[bacteria]]). Most internal causes of mutations stem from errors in reproduction of genetic material. Most of these errors are corrected by error-correcting [[ribosomes]].

Some organisms will respond to harsh environments by increasing the rate of mutations. This is known as [[hypermutation]] and is hypothesized to aid organisms by creating wider variation in the [[gene pool]] of the population, increasing the chances that at least some decedents might survive under harsh conditions.

==Types of Mutations==

'''Morphological mutants''' affect the outward appearance of an individual. Plant height mutations could changes a tall plant to a short one, or from having smooth to round seeds. '''Biochemical mutations''' have a lesion in one specific step of an enzymatic pathway. For bacteria, biochemical mutants need to be grown on a media supplemented with a specific nutrient. Such mutants are called auxotrophs. Often though, morphological mutants are the direct result of a mutation in a biochemical pathway. In humans, albinism is the result of a mutation in the pathway from converts the amino acid tyrosine to the skin pigment melanin. Similarly, cretinism results when the tyrosine to thyroxine pathway is mutated. Therefore, in a strict genetic sense, if appropriate experiments are performed, a morphological mutation can be explained at the biochemical level.

For some mutations to be expressed, the individual needs to be placed in a specific environment. This is called the restrictive condition. But if the individual grow in any other environment (permissive condition), the wild type phenotype is expressed. These are called conditional mutations. Mutations that only expressed at a specific temperature (temperature sensitive mutants), usually elevated, can be considered to be conditional mutations.

'''Lethal mutations''' are mutations that lead to the death of the individual. Death does not have to occur immediately, it may take several months or even years. But if the expected longevity of an individual is significantly reduced, the mutation is considered a lethal mutation.

Wild type alleles typically encode a product necessary for a specific biological function. If a mutation occurs in that allele, the function for which it encodes is also lost. The general term for these mutations is loss-of-function mutations. The degree to which the function is lost can vary. If the function is entirely lost, the mutation is called a null mutation. If is also possible that some function may remain, but not at the level of the wild type allele. These are called leaky mutations.

'''Loss of function mutations''' are typically recessive. When a heterozygote consists of the wild-type allele and the loss-of-function allele, the level of expression of the wild type allele is often sufficient to produce the wild type phenotype. Genetically this would define the loss-of-function mutation as recessive. Alternatively, the wild type allele may not compensate for the loss-of-function allele. In those cases, the phenotype of the heterozygote will be equal to that of the loss-of-function mutant, and the mutant allele will act as a dominant.

Although it would be expected that most mutations would lead to a loss of function, it is possible that a new and important function could result from the mutation. In these cases, the mutation creates a new allele that is associated with a new function. Any heterozygote containing the new allele along with the original wild type allele will express the new allele. Genetically this will define the mutation as a dominant. This class of mutations are called gain-of-function mutations.

==References==
Biology (7th Edition). Neil A. Campbell,Jane B. Reece. http://www.amazon.com/Biology-7th-Neil-Campbell/dp/080537146X.

[[Category:Biology]]

Talk:Natural selection

2007-09-05T20:45:15Z

Tims: /* Rewrite */

== Changes to article ==

Apologies, forgot to add the reason for change!

Adding more detail about the mechanisms of natural selection and known examples.

==Industrial melanism dispute==

Cut entire contents of section:
*In England during the [[industrial revolution]] pollution killed mosses and lichens on tree trunks, turning them from light colours to dark brown. Before this occurred most specimens of the peppered moth ''Biston betularia'' had white wings with black spots - giving a peppered appearance. During the period with dark tree trunks (1849 to circa 1970) the white version of ''betularia'' was easily predated on by birds, decreasing the frequency of the white-wing allele. Individuals with dark wings caused by high concentrations of melanin became much more frequent and the allele frequency for melanic moths increased. When pollution levels were reduced in the late 1960s the trees gained more moss and lichens, making the trunks lighter and predation selected against melanic forms of the peppered moth. It is now thought that the proportions of white to melanic moths in England have now returned to pree-1849 levels.

[[Jonathan Wells]] points out the mistakes in this. For one thing, photos of moths resting on tree trunks had to be staged, because photographers couldn't find any moths doing this: they actually rest on the undersides of leaves. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:50, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
"
Even advocates of using the peppered moth story to support natural selection admit that it isn't supported by the science:

*there are differences between the explanations given in popularizations and introductory textbooks, which are intended for children and the lay public, and what is actually known about the phenomenon as it is discussed in journal articles intended for scientists. [http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/05/welcome_article.html (Panda's Thumb)]

Wells wrote:
*Kettlewell's experiments supposedly demonstrated that cryptic coloration and selective bird predation are the principle causes of industrial melanism were discredited by (a) findings in the 1960's and 1970's that other factors (such as migration and non-visual selection) had to be invoked to account for observed geographical distributions, (b) reports that the rise and fall of melanism were not correlated with lichen cover on tree trunks in the U.S. or many parts of the U.K., (c) research in the 1980's showing that peppered moths in the wild do not normally rest on tree trunks (where Kettlewell conducted his experiments), and (d) revelations that all photographs of peppered moths on tree trunks have been staged, either by manually positioning live moths or by pinning or gluing dead ones. [http://www.nmsr.org/jonwells.htm]

Now, how do we write about all this in the article? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 21:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Spelling Changes ==

I fail to see why it was necessary to go through and change all the spellings from one form of English to another, English can be understood as long as the spellings are correct, which they were. Please could someone explain to me the significance of this? --[[User:Tomt|Tomt]] 11:57, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:I changed "colours" to "colors", as only the latter is considered correct in American English. American English is the most popular language in the world. British spellings give the article an archaic flavor. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:33, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::I would be interested to see some statistics to back up the claim that American English is the most popular language in the world.[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 13:41, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::: I just did some simple web searches with Google and Yahoo, and I found 3 to 4 times as many pages with the American spellings. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:13, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::::So you did a search using '''American''' search engines for random words and you are now citing that as evidence that American English is the most popular language in the world?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 17:32, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::I am, quite frankly, a little insulted that you find my language archaic. It is correct English, whether or not it is American or British and does not impede understanding. Also, please provide some actual evidence for the prevalence of American English, as I have been unable to find any in 15 minutes of searching the internet. What happens to your statistics iif you searched on the German Google? Would you argue that Conservapedia should be in German? I think not. --[[User:Tomt|TomT]] 14:47, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::: I am not trying to offend the British or the Germans. I am just trying to use language that will be commonly understood. Maybe there will be versions of Conservapedia in other languages some day, I don't know. In the meantime, American English is preferred. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:27, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::::I apologise if I suggested you insulted the Germans, I was merely using it as an example. There is nowhere that I can find on this website that tells us that American English is preferred. Your opinion is especially contradicted by the point that informs us that "We have decided to remove Conservapedia Commandment 5. (American Spellings must be used)", quoted from the Conservapedia talk page. --[[User:Tomt|TomT]] 17:45, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: Thanks for pointing out that change. Two sentences later, it says, "However we would like Conservapedia to be as consistant as possible so we will continue to include american spellings as a style guideline." Hmmm. I prefer the spelling ''consistent''. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:07, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Nested Categories? ==

Why has this article on the science biology been removed from the science and biology categories???

:''Category:Genetics'' is itself a member of ''Category:Biology'', which is a member of ''Category:Science''. Listing all three is redundant, and makes the higher categories rather unwieldly. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 09:18, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:How is listing all three redundant? And what do you mean by unwieldy? Surely each category should contain a list of ''all'' the articles it contains?

==Intro==

Cut from intro:

:This selection process is in response to forces in the natural world, as opposed to [[artificial selection]], whereby selection is made by a human being, such as a farmer selecting his breeding stock or variety of [[plant]].

How is it a "response"? Do the animals sit down for a meeting and then vote on it?

And isn't it the biggest bone of contention, whether this principle '''does''' any selecting, just like an Actual Breeder? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:37, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Basically it just comes down to this, if you able to survive under the current conditions you will live, if you're not, you'll die.
You don't have to be perfectly suited to your environment, you only have to survive even if it's through luck.

Eventually though, a life form that's better suited to its environment has a greater chance of survival, so does its offspring, and the traits that make them different from the ones who have a smaller chance of survival will become more common within the population: then we would say nature has "selected" those traits and thus the life forms carrying them.

The genetic mutations that cause traits to change are random and sometimes don't happen fast enough to ensure the survival of at least some members of the population when the environment changes, but on the long run the system works.
In fact natural selection shapes everything, from birds to planets to entire galaxies.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:Just to add for Ed's sake, sexual selection is a major principle behind this.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:29, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Ed, a phenotype is the displayed traits of a genome. The difference between a genotype and phenotype is that genotypes are everything your genome codes for while your phenotype is everything that is expressed.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 22:25, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:If we're playing buzzword bingo, you just won - and I lost. :-(

:What's a [[genome]], [[genotype]], [[phenotype]] ... and what does it mean to "express" any of this? In plain English without all the mumbo-jumbo (as Jack said to the angel in "[[Family Man]]"). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:30, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Phenotype examples: Brown hair, blue eyes, wrinkly skin on a pea, type B blood. Something that is observable.
:: Genotype examples: Brown hair gene, blond hair gene. Two blue eye genes. two wrinkly skin on pea genes. The genes for type B blood and type O blood.
:: That help somewhat? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 22:32, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

== Rewrite ==

Hi Ed, could you just clarify what work you need doing to this article so that I can improve it please? I'll be happy to oblige if you provide a list of the things that need changing. --[[User:Tomt|TomT]] 14:37, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

I believe I've clarified the role of natural selection in evolution. Let me know if you have any comments.--[[User:Elevens|Elevens]] 12:12, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

==Importance of the Phenotype and Genotype in this article==
Just to note, Natural Selection is based off [[phenotype]] instead of the [[genotype]]. This is important in reguards to the mutation questions since a [[somatic mutation]] would not contribute a phenotype change that could be passed to offspring whereas a build up of [[germinal mutation]]s would. We should also include that all phenotypical changes must be compared to the current selective pressures to determine their fitness, this is needed due to the on going change of selective pressures.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 16:45, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

Glaucoma

2007-09-04T13:34:30Z

Tims:

'''Glaucoma''' refers to a category of eye disorders often associated with a dangerous buildup of internal eye pressure, which can damage the eye's optic nerve that transmits visual information to the brain.

With untreated or uncontrolled glaucoma, a person might eventually notice decreased ability to see at the edges of their vision (peripheral vision). Progressive eye damage could then lead to blindness.

In fact, as the second leading cause of blindness, glaucoma creates at least some vision loss in more than half of the approximately 2.5 million Americans estimated to have the eye disease.

==Glaucoma Symptoms==
Glaucoma is often referred to as the "silent thief of sight," because most types typically cause no pain and produce no symptoms. For this reason, glaucoma often progresses undetected until the optic nerve already has been irreversibly damaged, with varying degrees of permanent vision loss.

But with acute, angle-closure glaucoma, symptoms that occur suddenly can include blurry vision, halos around lights, intense eye pain, nausea, and vomiting.

==Types of Glaucoma==
The two major types of glaucoma are chronic or primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) and acute angle-closure glaucoma, with angle referring to the configuration of internal eye structures that drain fluids. Other variations include congenital glaucoma, pigmentary glaucoma, and secondary glaucoma.

===Primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG)===
About half of Americans with chronic glaucoma don't know they have it. Glaucoma gradually reduces peripheral vision. But by the time it is noticed, permanent damage has already occurred. If the IOP remains high, the destruction can progress until tunnel vision develops, and the person will be able to see only objects that are straight ahead.

===Angle-closure glaucoma===
Angle-closure or narrow angle glaucoma produces sudden symptoms such as eye pain, headaches, halos around lights, dilated pupils, vision loss, red eyes, nausea, and vomiting. These signs may last for a few hours, then return again for another round. Each attack takes with it part of the field of vision.

===Normal-tension glaucoma===
Like POAG, normal-tension glaucoma (also termed normal-pressure glaucoma, low-tension glaucoma, or low-pressure glaucoma) is an open-angle type of glaucoma that can cause visual field loss due to optic nerve damage. But in normal-tension glaucoma, the eye's IOP remains in the normal range. Also, pain is unlikely and permanent damage to the eye's optic nerve may not be noticed until symptoms such as tunnel vision occur.

The cause of normal-tension glaucoma is not known. But many doctors believe it is related to poor blood flow to the optic nerve. Normal-tension glaucoma is more common in those who are Japanese, are female, and/or have a history of vascular disease.

===Congenital glaucoma===
This inherited form of glaucoma is present at birth, with 80% of cases diagnosed by age one. These children are born with narrow angles or some other defect in the drainage system of the eye. It's difficult to spot signs of congenital glaucoma, because children are too young to understand what is happening to them. Congenital glaucoma typically occurs more in boys than in girls.

===Pigmentary glaucoma===
This rare form of glaucoma is caused by pigment deposited from the iris that clogs the draining angles, preventing aqueous humor from leaving the eye. Over time, the inflammatory response to the blocked angle damages the drainage system. It is unlikely to notice any symptoms with pigmentary glaucoma, though some pain and blurry vision may occur after exercise. Pigmentary glaucoma affects mostly white males in their mid-30s to mid-40s.

===Secondary glaucoma===
Symptoms of chronic glaucoma following an eye injury could indicate secondary glaucoma, which also may develop with presence of infection, inflammation, a tumor, or an enlarged cataract.

==Medical marijuana==

Studies in the early 1970s showed that marijuana, when smoked, lowered intraocular pressure (IOP) in people with normal pressure and those with glaucoma. In an effort to determine whether marijuana, or drugs derived from marijuana, might be effective as a glaucoma treatment, the National Eye Institute (NEI) supported research studies beginning in 1978. These studies demonstrated that some derivatives of marijuana transiently lowered IOP when administered orally, intravenously, or by smoking, but not when topically applied to the eye.

However, none of these studies demonstrated that marijuana -- or any of its components -- could lower IOP as effectively as drugs already on the market. In addition, some potentially serious side effects were noted, including an increased heart rate and a decrease in blood pressure in studies using smoked marijuana.

*Advocates of medicinal marijuana cite evidence that hemp products can lower intraocular pressure (IOP) in people with glaucoma. However, these products are less effective than safer and more available medicines. Most research regarding marijuana use took place before some current medications with fewer side effects were available. The high dose of marijuana necessary to produce a clinically relevant effect on IOP in the short term requires constant inhalation, as much as every three hours. The number of significant side effects generated by long-term oral use of marijuana or long-term inhalation of marijuana smoke make marijuana a poor choice in the treatment of glaucoma. [http://www.glaucoma.org/treating/medical_marijua.html]

==Links==
*[http://www.glaucoma.org/treating/medical_marijua.html Medical Marijuana] Glaucoma Research Foundation

Talk:CAMP

2007-08-30T12:34:46Z

Tims: New page: This page should be moved to cAMP.--~~~~

This page should be moved to cAMP.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 08:34, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

James Inhofe

2007-08-21T19:53:09Z

Tims: Inhofe is no longer the chairman of those committees.

[[Image:Inhofe.jpg|thumb|right|150px]]
'''James Inhofe''' is [[Republican]] [[United States]] Senator from the state of [[Oklahoma]]. He served as the chairman of the Senate's Committee on the Environment and Public Works Committee and the Armed Services Commitee until 2006.<ref>http://www.uscc.gov/bios/2005bios/05_07_21_22/inhofe_james.htm</ref> In 1994, after former Congressmen David Boren resigned to take a position at the University of Oklahoma, Inhofe ran and won the congressional election. He was re-elected in 1996 and again in 2002.

After taking the role as Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee in 2003, Inhore worked to increase security enhancement in drinking water and wastewater facilities, passing a bill which authorized a total of $245 million in Environmental Protection Agency grants,<ref>http://inhofe.senate.gov/public/</ref>. Through this work in the committee, Inhore endeavors to restored sound science to the regulatory decisions on such issues as [[global warming]], wetlands, clean air mandates, and endangered species.

Ihofes voting record on social issues such as [[abortion]] and embryonic stem cell research, along with his support for increase taxes, have proven him to be a strong conservative.

Inhofe previously served four terms in the [[U.S. House of Representatives]] representing Oklahoma's First Congressional District and as Oklahoma State Senate Majority leader in 1966, serving one term.

==External Links==
*[http://inhofe.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Home.Home Official Website]
*[http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/James_Inhofe.htm Voting Record]
==References==
<references/>
{{DEFAULTSORT:Inhofe, James}}
[[Category: US Senators]]

Glycerol

2007-07-26T20:41:09Z

Tims: New page: '''Glycerol''', or glycerin, is a clear, colourless, viscous, sweet-tasting liquid organic compound of the alcohol family, chemical formula HOCH2CHOHCH2OH. With three hydroxyl groups, ...

'''Glycerol''', or glycerin, is a clear, colourless, viscous, sweet-tasting liquid organic compound of the alcohol family, chemical formula HOCH2CHOHCH2OH. With three [[hydroxyl]] groups, it can form three types of [[ester]]s ([[monoglyceride]]s, [[diglyceride]]s, and [[triglyceride]]s). Mono- and [[diglyceride]]s are common food additives. Fats and oils are [[triglyceride]]s; their processing into [[soap]] was the chief source of glycerol until the mid-20th century, when industrial synthesis took over.

Glycerol has thousands of uses, including as an emulsifier, softening agent, plasticizer, and stabilizer in baked goods, ice cream, and tobacco; in skin lotions, mouthwashes, and cough medicines; as a protective medium for freezing [[red blood cell]]s, [[sperm]], [[cornea]]s, and other tissues; in printing inks and in the gums and resins in paints and coatings; in antifreeze mixtures; as a nutrient in [[fermentation]]; and as a raw material for [[nitroglycerin]].

[[Category:Chemistry]]

Triglyceride

2007-07-26T20:37:40Z

Tims: New page: A triglyceride is any of an important class of naturally occurring lipids, esters in which three molecules of fatty acids are linked to glycerol. The three fatty acids may be a...

A triglyceride is any of an important class of naturally occurring [[lipid]]s, [[ester]]s in which three molecules of fatty acids are linked to [[glycerol]]. The three fatty acids may be all the same kind or different kinds. The types of triglycerides in animals vary with the species and the fats in their food. In mammals they are stored in [[adipose tissue]] until needed and then broken down to the [[glycerol]] and [[fatty acid]]s. Many vegetable triglycerides (oils) are liquid at room temperature, unlike those of animals, and tend to contain a greater variety of fatty acids. In [[alkali]], triglycerides break down to form [[glycerol]] and three molecules of soap.

[[Category:Biochemistry]]
[[Category:Chemistry]]

Fatty acid

2007-07-26T20:35:19Z

Tims: New page: A '''fatty acid''' is an organic compound that is an important component of lipids in plants, animals, and microorganisms. Fatty acids are carboxylic acids with a long ...

A '''fatty acid''' is an organic compound that is an important component of [[lipid]]s in [[plant]]s, [[animal]]s, and [[microorganism]]s. Fatty acids are [[carboxylic acid]]s with a long [[hydrocarbon]] chain, usually straight, as the fourth substituent group on the carboxyl (COOH) group that makes the molecule an acid. If the carbon-to-carbon bonds in that chain are all single, the fatty acid is saturated; artificial saturation is called [[hydrogenation]]. A fatty acid with one double bond is monounsaturated; one with more is polyunsaturated. These are more reactive chemically.

Most unsaturated fats are liquid at room temperature, so food manufacturers hydrogenate them to make them solid. A high level of saturated fatty acids in the diet raises blood [[cholesterol] levels. A few fatty acids have branched chains. Others (e.g., [[prostaglandin]]s) contain ring structures. Fatty acids in nature are always combined, usually with [[glycerol]] as [[triglyceride]]s in fats. [[Oleic acid]] (unsaturated, with 18 carbon atoms) is almost half of human fat and is abundant in such oils as olive, palm, and peanut. Most animals, including mammals, cannot synthesize some unsaturated “essential” fatty acids; humans need [[linoleic]], [[linolenic]], and [[arachidonic]] acids in their diet.

[[Category:Biochemistry]]

Phospholipid

2007-07-26T20:31:26Z

Tims:

A '''phospholipid''' ,or phosphatide, is a member of a large class of fatlike organic compounds that in their molecular structure resemble the [[triglyceride]]s, except for the replacement of a [[fatty acid]] with a [[phosphate]]-containing polar group. The polar end of the molecule is soluble in [[water]] ([[hydrophilic]]) and water solutions (including [[cytoplasm]]); the other, fatty-acid end is soluble in fats ([[hydrophobic]]). In a watery environment phospholipids naturally combine to form a two-layer structure, [[lipid bilayer]], with the fat-soluble ends sandwiched in the middle and the water-soluble ends sticking out. Such [[lipid bilayer]]s are the structural basis of [[cell membrane]]s. Phospholipids are the principal components of the [[myelin sheath]]s of [[neuron]]s. Examples of phospholipids include [[lecithin]], [[cephalin]]s, [[phosphoinositide]]s (in the brain), and [[cardiolipin]] (in the heart).

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Biochemistry]]
[[Category:Cellular Biology]]
[[Category:Organic Chemistry]]

User talk:BeachTori

2007-07-26T20:25:03Z

Tims: New page: Seems you do a lot of promoting of newsmax. The only two articles you have written are supporting it. Just to note that quackwatch has a watch on Blaylock and his claims.--~~~~

Seems you do a lot of promoting of newsmax. The only two articles you have written are supporting it. Just to note that quackwatch has a watch on Blaylock and his claims.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 16:25, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

Taxis

2007-07-26T20:21:02Z

Tims: New page: '''Taxis''' is the movement of organisms either toward or away from a stimulus, such as light (phototaxis), heat (thermotaxis), chemicals (chemotaxis), gravity (geotaxis), and touch (thigm...

'''Taxis''' is the movement of organisms either toward or away from a stimulus, such as light (phototaxis), heat (thermotaxis), chemicals (chemotaxis), gravity (geotaxis), and touch (thigmotaxis).

[[Category:Biology]]

Chemotaxis

2007-07-26T20:20:08Z

Tims: Redirecting to Taxis

#REDIRECT [[Taxis]]

Cell membrane

2007-07-26T20:19:02Z

Tims: New page: The '''cell membrane''' structure is composed mostly of lipid and protein that forms the external boundary of cells and of major structures within cells. Membrane organizat...

The '''cell membrane''' structure is composed mostly of [[lipid]] and [[protein]] that forms the external boundary of [[cell]]s and of major structures within [[cell]]s. Membrane organization is based on a sheet two molecules thick—a double layer of [[lipid]]s aligned with their long [[hydrocarbon]] tails tucked inside—studded with [[protein]] molecules, some of which extend completely through the [[lipid bilayer]]. The basic function of the membrane is to provide for the integrity of the cell—e.g., to separate the outside from the inside. While [[water]] and a few substances, such as [[carbon dioxide]] and [[oxygen]], can diffuse across the membrane, most molecules necessary for cellular functions traverse the membrane by means of transport mechanisms. There are several such mechanisms and they rely upon interactions between a transportable molecule and specific protein molecules in the membrane. Among these is the Na + -K + pump, by which [[sodium]] [[ion]]s within the [[cell]] are exchanged with [[potassium]] [[ion]]s from without. Such transport functions permit selective entry of particular materials into the [[cell]] and into structures within the [[cell]]. Information can also be transmitted across the membrane. In this case, specific membrane proteins called receptors bind hormones or other such informational molecules and subsequently transmit a signal to the interior of the cell. [[Endocytosis]] also allows the bulk transport of materials across the membrane.

[[Category:Cellular Biology]]

Endocytosis

2007-07-26T20:14:32Z

Tims: New page: '''Endocytosis''' is the process by which substances are taken into the cell . When the cell membrane comes into contact with a suitable food, a portion of the cell cytoplasm s...

'''Endocytosis''' is the process by which substances are taken into the [[cell]] . When the [[cell membrane]] comes into contact with a suitable food, a portion of the cell [[cytoplasm]] surges forward to meet and surround the material and a depression forms within the [[cell wall]]. The depression deepens and the movement of the [[cytoplasm]] continues until the food is completely engulfed in a pocket called a [[vessicle]]. The [[vessicle]] then drifts further into the body of the cell where it meets and fuses with a [[lysosome]], a [[vessicle]] normally found in the cell that contains digestive [[enzyme]]s known as [[acid hydrolases]]. The food is then broken down into molecules and ions that are suitable for the [[cell]]'s use.

There are two types of endocytosis:
*[[pinocytosis]], the engulfing and digestion of dissolved substances.
*[[phagocytosis]], the engulfing and digestion of microscopically visible particles.

[[Phagocytosis]] is the process by which many [[protozoan]]s obtain most of their food supply. It is also the process through which specialized [[cell]]s in animals eliminate foreign matter, such as infecting microorganisms, as part of the body's defense system.

The various [[phagocytic cell]]s in higher animals are derived from relatively unspecialized [[cell]]s called [[stem cell]]s that are either fixed within a network of supporting [[reticular cell]]s and fibers of the [[spleen]], [[thymus]], and [[bone marrow]], or that wander freely throughout body tissues. Many [[phagocytic cell]]s respond chemically to substances produced by foreign bodies or by degenerating tissue by moving toward the substances, a mechanism known as [[chemotaxis]]. When a particle of the proper charge or chemical composition adheres to the [[cell]] surface, the [[cell]] [[cytoplasm]] moves so that it finally surrounds the particle and traps it within a cytoplasmic [[vacuole]]. Various [[enzyme]]s are then secreted into the [[vacuole]] to digest the foreign substance. In higher animals each [[phagocyte]] can ingest about 5 to 25 invading bacterial cells.

Phagocytosis often precedes production of [[antibodies]] by the body, but some species of [[bacteria]] cannot be phagocytized unless specific [[antibody]] is already present. Although phagocytosis is an effective response to infection, some organisms, such as the [[bacteria]] causing [[brucellosis]] and [[tuberculosis]], can survive for years within the descendant cells of the [[phagocyte]]s that ingested them. The process of phagocytosis was first described in the late 19th cent. by the Russian zoologist Élie Metchnikoff.

[[Category:Cellular Biology]]

Lysosome

2007-07-26T20:05:03Z

Tims:

The '''lysosome''' is the membrane-enclosed [[organelle]] found in all [[eukaryotic cell]]s that is responsible for [[hydrolysis]], cellular digestion, of macromolecules, old cell parts, and microorganisms. Lysosomes contain a wide variety of [[enzyme]]s that break down macromolecules such as [[nucleic acid]]s, [[protein]]s, and [[polysaccharide]]s. Many of the products of lysosomal digestion, including [[amino acid]]s and [[nucleotide]]s, are recycled back to the cell for use in synthesizing new cellular components.<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Biology''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1998</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Cellular Biology]]

Liposome

2007-07-26T19:58:44Z

Tims: New page: A '''liposome''' is microscopic, fluid-filled pouch whose walls are made of layers of phospholipids identical to the phospholipids that make up cell membranes. Liposomes are us...

A '''liposome''' is microscopic, fluid-filled pouch whose walls are made of layers of [[phospholipid]]s identical to the [[phospholipid]]s that make up [[cell membrane]]s. Liposomes are used to deliver certain [[vaccine]]s, [[enzyme]]s, or drugs (e.g., insulin and some cancer drugs) to the body. When used in the delivery of certain cancer drugs, liposomes help to shield healthy cells from the drugs' toxicity and prevent their concentration in vulnerable tissues (e.g., the [[kidney]]s, and [[liver]]), lessening or eliminating the common side effects of nausea, fatigue, and hair loss. Liposomes are especially effective in treating diseases that affect the [[phagocyte]]s of the [[immune system]] because they tend to accumulate in the [[phagocyte]]s, which recognize them as foreign invaders. They have also been used experimentally to carry normal [[gene]]s into a cell in order to replace defective, disease-causing [[gene]]s . Liposomes are sometimes used in cosmetics because of their moisturizing qualities.

Liposomes were first produced in England in 1961 by Alec D. Bangham, who was studying [[phospholipid]]s and blood clotting. It was found that [[phospholipid]]s combined with water immediately formed a sphere because one end of each molecule is water soluble, while the opposite end is water insoluble. Water-soluble medications added to the water were trapped inside the aggregation of the hydrophobic ends; fat-soluble medications were incorporated into the [[phospholipid]] layer.

In some cases liposomes attach to [[cellular membrane]]s and appear to fuse with them, releasing their contents into the cell. Sometimes they are taken up by the cell, and their [[phospholipid]]s are incorporated into the [[cell membrane]] while the drug trapped inside is released. In the case of phagocytic cells, the liposomes are taken up, the [[phospholipid]] walls are acted upon by [[organelle]]s called [[lysosome]]s, and the medication is released. Liposomal delivery systems are still largely experimental; the precise mechanisms of their action in the body are under study, as are ways in which to target them to specific diseased tissues.

==See Also==

*[[gene therapy]]

[[Category:Cellular Biology]]

Talk:Liberal hypocrisy

2007-07-26T19:45:22Z

Tims: /* Al Gore and Carbon Offsetting */

== This should be merged ==

Shouldn't this article really just be titled "hypocrisy" with a note that liberals often engage in this type of behavior? It could be its own category - blended together with [[deceit]], the [[occult]], etc. --[[User:LiteratiChamp|LiteratiChamp]] 19:07, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:Too early for that. Let the articles develop separately first; we can always generalize later. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:22, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

Isn't calling someone a hypocrite for the actions of the ''characters they play'' a bit of a stretch? I mean, is that the best you can do? There are surely much better examples than that. It just seems desperate. Are we going to see an article saying that Anthony Hopkins is a hypocrite because he does not believe in genocide, but in ''The Bunker'' he played Hitler, a man who is one of history's greatest perpertrators of genocide? [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 09:04, 21 July 2007 (EDT)
:It depends on what they say and do after they leave the set. Anthony Hopkins isn't going around saying Hitler was a kind man while he was a dictator. You see, I don't like PETA screaming that dolphins are dying in tuna nets while not saying anything about the tuna. I don't it when Al Gore demands we stop polluting the atmosphere, yet it's OK for him to drive huge gas-guzzlers and giant jumbo jets. Get the picture? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:27, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

This all started for me when I had an on-line conversation some years ago in one of the Dalnet channels. A man appeared and wanted to talk about the environment, specifically oil production and how he can get people against it. He revealed himself as a member of Greenpeace. When I badgered him as to what car he drove, he told the other members of the group it was a Honda, one of those gas-miser cars. Then I said something that got that hypocrite to voluntarily get out of the channel:
:''"So, you can protest all the oil companies you want, yet you have the gall to put their products in your own car?"''
That is the kind of hypocrisy I don't like. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:38, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

:It seems that stuff like that belongs in this article more than what characters they play do. Though one should be hesitant to classify as a hypocrite anyone who is critical of reliance on oil and who drives a car. It is very difficult for most people to get by without some sort of car, and impossible for them not to consume oil in some form. Owning a car while being an advocate for alternative energy isn't really hypocritical unless the car is a Hummer or some other such gas-guzzler. As for PETA, their anti-meat stance is pretty well documented. They stressed the dolphins because people are much more sympathetic to the plight of dolphins than to the tuna they put in their sandwiches. And it sort of worked, there were tuna boycotts, at least for a time. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 14:56, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

::The point of this is to illustrate the fact that many of these people refuse to practice what they preach. I've never accepted the passes these people give themselves to justify what they do while condemning others for the same things. If, for example, the man who drives the gas miser protests the man driving the gas guzzler, by what pass does the man in the gas miser get? He's still polluting; it may be less pollution, ''but it's still pollution''. And PETA cannot pick and choose which animals to save and which to kill; they picked dolphins (which are cute) over tuna (which are tasty); both are still animals. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 07:39, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm not buying this argument. By merely existing one is going to contribute some pollution to the environment. I suppose the most ecological sound action a person can take is to kill himself and take as many people as possible with him, in an environmentally friendly manner (ie no nuking). Are we to believe that the only people who have a right to take a stand against pollution are mass murderer/suicides? Anyone who takes a stand against pollution and makes a conserted effort to meaningfully ''reduce'' the pollution he causes is not a hypocrite (note I say reduce, not eliminate, which would be impossible). Now, whether Al Gore really does as much as he should is somewhat doubtful. Is a person critical of loss of American jobs to China and such countries a hypcrite if they at some point in their life buy a good made in China (and it must be nearly impossible not to these days)? Is a conservative critical of Disney's "gay friendly" policies a hypocrite if at some point in their lives they spend $1 on something made by one of Disney's many subsidiaries? You also say "PETA cannot pick and choose which animals to save and which to kill", but PETA has never endorsed the killing of tuna. I'd bet you can find some hypocracy within the organiztion (and ''certainly'' among some of its members), but that's not an example. They made an issue of the dolphins because they knew it was an issue that registered with people. And since their drive to make everyone a vegetarian is doomed to failure, they picked a battle they thought they could win. Is a Christian charity that helps victims of poverty in India hypocritical for not doing the same for people in Namibia? Are they "picking and choosing" which people to save and which to let die? There are plenty of hypocrites out there, why use such bad examples? [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 15:43, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Shouldn't there be an article on conservative hypocrisy to keep it fair? --[[User:9820|9820]] 14:34, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
::I agree. There have been conservatives who have behaved in a hypocritical manner, much to the dismay of the country. I can give two examples of US Congressman, both of which are charged with making (and obeying) the laws on the books, and both of which ''broke'' those laws. One, Duke Cunningham of San Diego, was sent to the slammer for bribery, and the other (I forgot his name), a South Dakota representative, was given ten years for manslaughter because he felt he could speed on the highway when he ran down someone on a motorcycle. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 07:38, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

I removed the movie quotes. They just plain were not relevent. It's a stupid as saying "Cloony supports stealing cause he wsa in oceans 11". [[User:Tesfan|Tesfan]] 11:51, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

I also removed the following, because if you do not count the silly movie quotes, then there is no hypocrisy:

:The quotes were put back. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:26, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

::Why? [[User:Tesfan|Tesfan]] 12:27, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
:::The answer to "why" is clearly listed above. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:28, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

==Al Gore and Carbon Offsetting==

Karajou, I was drafting a short edit when you protected the page; It's intellectually dishonest to claim Al Gore is hypocrtical in his energy use if you fail to mention his practicing carbon offsetting. Suggesting that he's hypocritical for attacking Big Oil and promoting fighting global warming while he still uses jets and has a large house is simply a strawman. If you'd really like, I will gladly enumerate some reasons why. However, in the meantime, I strongly advise you re-draft the criticism of Al Gore to mention his carbon offsetting. You can disagree that this practice is of the same value as the pollution he creates with his activity, but you can't simply dismiss it entirely. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 12:34, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
:Explain carbon offsetting [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:37, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
::Carbon offsetting is the principle that you can augment behavior that pollutes the atmosphere by adopting and expressly practicing behaviors that reduce pollution. For instance, growing up, my family would plant trees and help rebuild forested areas, and many other people will do this because each tree will statistically reduce a certain amount of CO2 in the air over a period of time. Many wealthier people will also help fund the development of renewable energy sources such as wind farms and solar farms, which also help offset the carbon dioxide emissions they produce.
::Simply put, celebrities such as Gore simply cannot avoid some of the emissiosn they produce. He is obligated to speak at certain forums, and there is no way he can make those speeches if he doesn't fly. To my knowledge, however, he doesn't usually use commercial airliners, preferring smaller, cleaner private jets. As for his house, the statistics on its energy usage are usually derived from stock figures on how much it costs to heat, cool, and light a house of the size. To my knowledge, again, he offsets these by not heating/cooling the entire building, using newer LED and other light teechnologies to reduce that energy usage, and also supplements the energy with renewable sources such as photovoltaic cells. This is all in addition to buying Carbon Credits, funding re-forestation, and funding the development of renewable energy sources. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 12:45, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:I figured carbon offsetting would be just another pass. Man drives a car 10 hours a day, feels bad he's polluting, gets a tree, plants it in the ground. Does he reduce his driving to five hours a day, thereby reducing the pollution, or is he going to rely on that tree to "off-set" the carbon he continues to generate? Give us all a break, Stryker. If you really and seriously don't want to pollute, toss away your car keys and never drive again. Tell Gore to stay off the plane. Tell your next-door neighbor to toss his cigarette butts in the garbage can and not on the street. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:56, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:Just a side note to add: contrary to popular conception, planting a tree does not actually reduce the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. A material balance over the life ''and death'' of a tree shows that the net change in CO2 ''must'' be 0, otherwise conservation of mass is violated. I now return you to your regularly scheduled debate :) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 13:22, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

::So you're just going to denigrate him like that? Listen to yourself and think about what you're saying. Some pollution is unavoidable; if you're in the position that Gore is in, that's especially so. I highly doubt he could reduce his carbon emissions any moreso than he's done already. Tell Gore to stay off the plane? I could tell you to turn off the computer to reduce the energy that you're consuming. Obviously, it's an unavoidable energy and carbon expense.
::I'm at a loss why my fellow Conservatives are so vehmently opposed towards the environmental movement. Is it because it was fathered during the Progressive Movement? If so, then that's a pretty cruddy reason. With the exception of groups that take it WAY too far (I would never support those groups that encourage people to become vegans or BS like that; it accomplishes nothing), the environmental movement benefits everyone. Cleaner air improves health; anyone who lived in LA and has moved elsewhere in the country can attest to that. Investing in energy efficient lightbulbs and appliances helps save money; my monthly electrical bills over the past two years can attest to that.
::Carbon Crediting and Offsetting is something that was established under the Kyoto Protocol as a means to curb global greenhouse gas emissions while attempting to cut back on the economic impact that those limits would impose on industrial nations. It's obviously not perfect, but it's by far the best system that's been devised to date. Just because you don't see the sense in it doesn't mean it isn't a good idea; this decade's insane ENSO conditions and odd climate anomalies should speak for themselves.
::If you don't want to participate in curbing greenhouse gas emissions, then fine; the rest of us won't mind doing a bit extra to cover your expenses. But don't assassinate those who are trying to come up with practical ways to solve this problem. We don't need to fear Gore - he's not running for President! [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 13:08, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Thanks for bringing up Kyoto, and the obligations of the signatory countries, specifically Spain. Just a few very short years ago, an oil tanker sent a mayday, yet Spain, a member of Kyoto, refused to tow the ship into port. Why? They didn't want to pollute their harbor with a little oil. So they let the ship sink at sea, which sent a lot of oil on their beaches. That's an example of hypocrisy their: stating they won't pollute, yet refusing to stop pollution when they had the chance. Thanks for reminding me to include it in the article! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:14, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

::::Again, that's a straw man. No where was I advocating Kyoto. Rather, the principles behind Kyoto. Kyoto is deeply flawed, but at least it ''tries'' to combat the problem of greenhouse gas emissions rather than let it all go to heck. Thank god that we've got a great generation of atmospheric scientists coming up who might be able o solve the catastrophe being left to them. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 08:30, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::Your global warming inuendo is a straw man, as these same scientists, like every like-minded scientist in the decade before, will talk about every excuse under the sun that causes global warming except the sun itself. And by the way, Stryker...your edits prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that, despite what you said about yourself above, you are not a conservative by any means possible. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 08:59, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

::::::Your animosity towards scientists is blinding you from what is actually being said about global climate change. It's obvious that you've never read a scholarly paper on the topic, because if you had done so, then you'd know that the decently-well understood mechanism of solar energy fluctuation is almost ''always'' used as a baseline in calculate relative energy levels in the atmosphere. The sun's contribution is already well understood, with the exception of some funky stuff with the solar wind and the VA belts. I urge you to get out of the political editorials about the topic and pick up a copy of Natural or the journal of the AMS before you continue to spread misinformation on the global climate change debate (which, I should add, is over debate-wise; it's more than corroborated that global climate change is occuring, and the only 'debate' left is to the extent that human industrialization has catalyzed the process).
::::::I'd like to see how my edits prove I'm not conservative. One can be an environmentalist and still be a conservative. Was no one here ever a boy scout when they were younger? If someone was, don't you cherish your memories of the outdoors? Conservation should be a hallmark of Conservatism; it would please me very much if we could take it back. I think that there is a misconception that conservation is something that necessitates expanded government; really, it just requires education about the environment, which I've found will almost always spur people to take personal action to protect it, negating government intervention. As for defending Gore, he's been instrumental in bringing attention to the environment. I may sharply disagree with his political philosophy, but the man is accomplishing very important things - I daresay greater things than either I or you will ever accomplish in our lives. The man deserves respect. Being vile towards the opposition just out of contempt is a liberal characteristic, not a conservative one. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 10:21, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
<--
*''"It's obvious that you've never read a scholarly paper on the topic"''
*It's obvious you never read the granddaddy of climatology scholars who says this alleged "scholarship" is a bunch of huey,{{Cquote|There is a lot of money to be made in this....If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide.'}}
*[http://robertsteely.townhall.com/Default.aspx?mode=post&g=abc72f45-f361-42a9-b73c-c01a506f1437 Father of Climatology Throws Up at the Thought of Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth'], Noel Sheppard, June 18, 2007. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:20, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:That's a strawman., and a terrible one as that. Reid Bryson isn't the "father of climatology;" he's really not even that famous. Sure, he's published some articles and some books (I've read ''Climate of Hunger''), but he hasn't published any new work in '''two decades.''' Once again, if we'd please stop reading internet blogs to get our science, we'd be well aware that the father of modern climatology is Alexander Humboldt, one of the most famous oceanographers of all time. Reid Bryson is not an authoritative source on the global warming debate. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 11:31, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::Right; he's just a senile old man outside of progressive thought. Typical response. Can't refute scholarship, so attack the source. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:37, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::The source is not credible and doesn't refute the initial data albeit for bald, unsupported assertions. On Edit: I'd like to point out that I've yet to make a change to the actual article pending the resolution of this argument. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 11:40, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::::So you say the source is not credible. Big deal. Who are you? Just an anonymous internet crusader with a point of view to peddle, whom the evidence now shows, is willing to denigrate and impugn the established reputation of a scholarly source. What is the motive? Dr. Bryson gives us the motive, based upon his many years of experience in the academic sphere, in addition to debunking the so-called "scholarship" and science.

::::So, if you haven't noticed by now, this is not DailyKos, or any other site where anonymous crusaders invent and perpetrate legends to impugn and discredit people the don't like or disagree with. Thus far, you've offered nothing to further this discussion, or improve the mainspace article.

::::Basically what I am saying amounts to this: liberal pap can amount to trolling, once it's been established the purpose or point of it to waste Sysop's time. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:57, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::Right now, I may be just an anonymous internet crusader, but then what role do you play? I'm content to remain anonymous and have my credentials questioned; I could care less whether my credentials are respected on an internet site as long as they're respected in the real world.

:::::The simple matter of fact is that Bryson is just regurgitating the same anti-GW talking points; the fact that he used to be a source of authority doesn't in any way bolster the argument. I've heard the ''exact same talking points'' in nearly the same wording from a wide variety of non-scientific sources. If anything, it undermines the argument, because a professional is unable to even put a tiny bit of scientific spin on them. I laugh at any argument that tries to introduce motive; kids don't grow up to be scientists in the hopes that they'll make a fortune.

:::::I'm not going to even touch the mainspace here until this argument is resolved because I already know I'll be banned for it; the 'motive' is apparent. However, I can't sit by without at least contesting this issue. My principles don't allow it. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 12:17, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::::::In carrying forward this ''reductio ad absurdum,'' let's examine this claim,
::::::*''kids don't grow up to be scientists in the hopes that they'll make a fortune''
::::::Very interesting premise. Ok, so they do not want to get rich. They must be driven by ideology then, huh? Hmmm, what ideology? Since "scientifically," there is no God, and they are not motived by money, what ideology drives these kids? Hmmm, is it to prove God wrong? Maybe scientists are smarter than God, huh? Maybe that is what drives them to be scientists since the are not motivated by money, to prove God wrong and to prove that to the rest of us, that they are smarter than God, huh? Very interesting premise. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:43, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::::RobS, I chose to be a scientist because I wanted to understand the world around me in a finer detail. I knew I would not make a "ton of money" (Scientific PhDs are the most underpaid for the amount of education than any other grad degree). I did not have a motive against god like you guessed in your paragraph above, in fact I attend a Presbyterian church like many of my colleagues at the NIH do. Perhaps this will shed some light on Stryker's response. Just to note, Bryson is a researcher who has been out of mainstream science discoveries in a decade to say the least. To put this in perspective perhaps you should look at what has been discovered in the past decade to see how that affects his creditability. Another point to make is the number of scientists who show evidence of climate change and causes, this is very important in the scientific community as well as any mathematician could explain the statistical relevance. Just because someone is not looking does not mean it is not there, this is the case of Bryson. He has yet to offer any scientifically viable evidence contrary to what modern climatologists have observed. As for Gore, it amazes me the number of people who complain about a man who is trying to make a change but are not willing to support the idea of the change. I have a son, I would like for him to enjoy the world as I have. I will do what I can to prevent the negative impact of my actions on the enviroment.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 15:45, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

Regarding the sun's influence on global warming - there was recently a study published on this. The paper can be found at http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 13:18, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

== Couple of points/comments ==

I certainly agree that liberals can be hypocrites (and just as much so as any other person) but I have to say that some of these examples are weak. There ''are'' good examples of liberal hypocrites (like rich Senator Kennedy who campaigns for raising the minimum wage for the poor while guiltlessly taking money from those same people in the form of a government salary) but we need to be very careful about those examples we choose to highlight. People view these sorts of pages with an extra critical eye and use them as evidence against us if they aren't good enough.
*Currently, the examples of George Cloony and Mark Wahlburg don't actually show any hypocracy. There must be two actions to show hypocracy and both of those examples show one action. If you think they are hypocrites because of the movies they are in (and this is a very, very weak argument) at least show an example of a movie where they endorsed guns.
*The O'Donnel, Brady, and Gore examples are excellent. And frightening. But they clearly demonstrate how those individuals are being hypocritical.
*If something "speaks for itself" then it shouldn't be very hard to just say it on the article. Without investing time into analyzing the links myself, I have no idea how Kerry is being hypocritical. And if I wanted to do my own research, I wouldn't be looking it up in an encyclopedia!
*Finally, a suggestion: could [[Greenpeace]]'s insistance on safe, clean, domestic fuel, while at the same time railing against our cleanest, safest and most energy efficient fuel source ([[nuclear energy]]) be considered hypocritical?

:In Greenpeace's case, it is their specific protest against oil drilling by sailing their vessels to oil drilling platforms at sea. The vessels they use are powered by the same oil and/or gas being produced by those platforms. Think about it. Do you go to the corner gas station and protest them, yet still expect to fill your tank up while your there? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:10, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
::No no, I agree with the picture, and I find it rather funny. I was just saying that I additionally find it hypocritical of them to boycott the only practical solution to their problem. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 13:15, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

=="Do As I Say (Not As I Do)"==

[[National Review]] had an article on Peter Schewizer's [http://www.amazon.com/Do-As-Say-Not-Hypocrisy/dp/0385513496 book], "''Do As I Say( Not As I Do)''", which documents hypocrisy by liberals. He shows alot of liberal hyprocrisy in this article. For instance, on [[Nancy Pelosi]]'s union policy, he states:

"Nancy Pelosi bashes everyone who doesn't allow unions to call the shots. Everyone that is except herself. It's takes an amazing amount of gall to accept the Cesar Chavez Award from the United Farmworkers Unions while using non-UFW workers on your Napa Valley Vineyard. It takes the same to praise the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union and take massive sums of money from them all the while keeping them out of your Hotel and chain of restaurants. But again, I think Pelosi correctly assumes that no one in the media will challenge her on this."

He also shows hypocrisy in a lot of other liberals like [[Michael Moore]], [[Hillary Rodham Clinton|Hillery Clinton]], [[Al Franken]], [[Ted Kennedy]], etc. You might want to check out this [http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/schweizer200510250827.asp article]. Hope this helps, --[[User:Tash|Tash]] 13:18, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
:Oh, it does help. I also have Al Franken's assitance via a book titled ''Pants on Fire''. Feel free to add in! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:24, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

== More on Clooney and Wahlberg ==

The following information should be added to the sections on George Clooney and Mark Wahlberg. Clooney says that he is against war, but starred in the movie ''Three Kings'' where he played a soldier fighting in the Gulf War. Anti-gun zealot Mark Wahlberg also starred in this same film.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 15:16, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Movies aren't real. *sigh* --[[User:Bucklesman|Bucklesman]] 20:18, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

The whole Cloony point is absolutely ridicilous and retarded. For Gods sake, he was in a film - Films are not reality! Whoever wrote that piece deserves the death penalty. [[User:Denzo|Denzo]] 10:03, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Deletion

2007-07-02T13:04:21Z

Tims: New page: Perhaps this should be expanded on? There are many different types of deletions when it comes to biology. A manual gene deletion is called a "Knock out" as in knock out mice (mice who ha...

Perhaps this should be expanded on? There are many different types of deletions when it comes to biology. A manual gene deletion is called a "Knock out" as in knock out mice (mice who have had a gene removed to study the effects of the missing protein.)--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 09:04, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Smallpox

2007-06-16T13:46:25Z

Tims:

I liked this, so if this is out of line, Im sorry. Just revert it. I looked really hard and couldn't find anything offensive, but I'm no expert.[[User:Apologetic|Apologetic]] 20:41, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

I am trying to understand why the longer version is not ok? This version seems to be a stub.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 09:46, 16 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Natural science

2007-06-13T16:13:38Z

Tims: /* To be taken seriously */

== Irony ==

Isn't it it sort of ironic to reference a creationist on the 'science' page?

:For extra kicks: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Search?search=Apologia+Educational+Ministries&fulltext=Search How often Apologie Educational Ministries are used as reference] ;) I only made that search after a few blogs pointed it out. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:01, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== Peer review ==

Conservatives referencing science! This is like a construction company trying to build a modern building with a primitive hammer and wooden rivets, consulting from architectural plans interpreted through Aramaic, Greek, Latin and then English of whose origins you do not know and whose different pages contradict themselves. Personally I would much rather trust information that was obtained using only the soundest of scientific methods that was many times over peer reviewed and tested many times over accounting for as many variables as possible. Don't trust this method? You already do when you fly in a plane or drive your car (thermodynamics, aerodynamics, chemistry, metallurgy, physics, etc.) For peer reviewed information go back to school or consult wikepedia. For amusement, browse your heart away here!

:[[Peer review]] is no guarantee of correctness. It just means an article is good enough to be checked by other scientists. If an article fails peer review, it is either because (1) the research was so poorly conducted or described that there's no point in other scientists bothering with it, or (2) it represents such a challenge to established scientific belief that the journal chooses to suppress it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:27, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::Woah!!! PoV. How about "(2) Results are not supported by results from other researchers and cannot be explained according to our current understanding. Therefore, there is a good chance that the results are erroneous". If the data are good enough, they will be published. There is no incentive on a journal to suppress research just because it doesn't fit the paradigm. The only incentive is for the journal to not publish high-profile research which is later proved to be wrong, which is embarrassing for the journal. [[User:Aloysius|Aloysius]] 09:51, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::There is evidence that journals ''do'' decline publishing ideas that go against the currently-popular paradigm. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]]

I don't deny it. But Ed seems to be assigning some sinister motive on the part of the journals - suppressing new results - which isn't necessarily true. There is a reason why the currently-popular paradigm is currently popular - it's because that explanation is the one that, in the opinion of the majority of researchers in that field, best fits the available data. Any findings which run counter to the paradigm need to have exceptionally good evidence to support them. A journal won't want to run a "The current paradigm is completely wrong" paper if there's any chance that it will turn out that the paper is wrong, because that reflects badly on the journal's editor. In summary, the peer review system isn't perfect, but Ed's wording there presents a highly biased point of view (which is, of course, contrary to conservapedia rules). [[User:Aloysius|Aloysius]] 11:28, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:I'm not assigning sinister motives, but I do recall multiple instances of scientists whose papers were rejected - for reasons other than shoddy research or poor writing. ''Science'' and ''Nature'' do it all the time. And journal editors have been forced to resign for daring to publish well-written, carefully researched studies.

:This is nothing new. The history of science is littered with it. I'm reading [[Farley Mowat]]'s 1963 book ''Never Cry Wolf'', in which he exposes prejudice in the scientific establishment in Canada. People lose their jobs when they upset the applecart, especially when they use the leverage of facts (see [[Whistleblower]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:37, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

There seems to be a common fallacy that scientists are all about maintaining the status quo. But new discoveries are the driving force in science. New discoveries are what win Nobel prizes, and get big research grants, and get papers in prestigious journals. The peer review/paradigm system introduces a certain amount of inertia into the system which can be counterproductive (occasionally good research can be rejected initially) but in most instances helps to winnow out anomalous or wrong results. [[User:Aloysius|Aloysius]] 11:45, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

== "Operational" v "Historical" science. ==

My edit in this regard was reverted [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Physical_science&diff=147270&oldid=147240]. The only people who make this distinction are creationists. Philosophers of science don't. You won't find this distinction discussed anywhere other than on creationist websites, and it doesn't show up in [[Karl Popper|Popper]], [[Thomas Kuhn|Kunn]], [[Imre Lakatos|Lakatos]], [[Willard Van Orman Quine|Quine]] or anyone other philsopher of note in the area. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 10:55, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

==To be taken seriously==

Just as at Wikipedia, we here at Conservapedia require statements about what "most scientists think" to be backed up by reliable sources.

So Joshua's opinion [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Physical_science&diff=prev&oldid=147240] is irrelevant.

If Joshua is giving his opinion, because he thinks it is true and relevant, that can be tolerated, but only if (1) it helps explain the topic to the reader and (2) can be shown to be true by verifiable references.

I do hope that our visitors from Wikipedia will not lower their editorial standards when they come over here. We are <s>now</s> new and terribly understaffed. We have possibly ten good writers, while Wikipedia has thousands. If there are any good writers who are knowledgeable about science, they can help us if that's what they want to do. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:56, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

: Ed, in that case the entire section should be removed since the source is by no means reliable. Again, if you think anyone does this, I challenge you to find this distinction in any work by any serious philosopher of science. You won't find it. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 10:59, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::What source is unreliable? That sounds like what Wikipedian POV-pushers say, when they want to censor ideas they personally dislike.

::We don't do that here, because [[scientific censorship]] is untrustworthy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:03, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:Hey Ed, did you happen to look at the cite for that statement that Joshua changed? It has nothing to do with the differentiation of types of sciences. I believe Philip may have placed the wrong link in for his cite of the two different types. I am actually interested in this since I have never heard a distinction between what is considered "Operational science" and "Origins science" Have to say it is news to me but then again I have been in the sciences for 20+ years and could have missed it.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:05, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:: 2 to 1, ED is winning. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 11:06, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Ed You assert that calling a source unreliable is " sounds like what Wikipedian POV-pushers say, when they want to censor ideas they personally dislike". Why then is the Talk Origins Archive is so frowned upon on a source here? Note that even creationwiki by the way agrees that the distinction between operational and historical science is one used by creationists: [http://creationwiki.org/Science | this entry says "Creationists, unlike many anticreationists, differentiate between operational science with origins science" At minimum, to take Sarfati's claim uncritically is uncalled for. In fact, if Conservapedia accepted all claims as uncritically this wiki would quickly become a free for all. Suggested rewording "according to [[Young Earth Creationist]] [[Jonathan Sarfati]] there are two types of sciece: operational science and historical science" And I again invite you to look for any serious philsci that makes this distinction. Its even more unworkable than strict Popperism. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 11:10, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:TimS, can you clarify what you mean about the citation?
:I deliberately did not write that section to say that "science '''is''' subdivided into two types, but that it '''can be'''. Does anyone dispute that it '''can be'''? I would consider it self-evident that there is a distinction between the two, which means that it ''can be'' subdivided according to that distinction. The fact that most evolutionists refuse to recognise a distinction that clearly exists only shows them in a bad light.
:In fact, tonight I watched the DVD of a [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4978/ debate between a creationists and an evolutionist], and the evolutionist, whilst not using those terms, did acknowledge that with evolution one can't reproduce the results like one can with other fields of science, thus tacitly admitting that such a distinction exists.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:20, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:Philip, the citation does not illustrate the difference between the two types of sciences it asserts. It lists evolution as an origin science but disregards the fact that TOE has allowed for expansion to germ theory and also to virology. So that would place it in the operational sciences category. If you followed the literal interpretation of what was stated on the page all sciences would be considered operational, they contribute to modern society. --[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:34, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:I am sorry about the "Can be" and "Is" point. You are correct and I respect that you did not wish to assert something as fact without the evidence.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:34, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::[[User:Ed Poor|Ed]] we already have good writers who are knowledgeable about science, [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] and [[User:Philip_J._Rayment|Philip_J._Rayment]]. If anyone needs help with science articles I suggest people get in touch with them. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 11:37, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Auld, I will admit that Philip takes the time out to learn about the science before writing , however I would disagree about conservative. He tends to quote and misunderstand the what he is writing against.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:40, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::TimS, I assume that you are talking about reference 4. Surely the text under "Confusing ‘origins science’ with ‘operational science’; the real origins of science" of that link ''does'' cover what we are talking about?
::If it is true that germ theory and virology have grown out of evolution (which I would dispute), all that means is that ''those'' fields are 'operational science', not that evolution is. But I could show you quotes from evolutionists admitting that evolution has ''not'' contributed much to "real" science.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:55, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I do refer to reference 4. It has many generalizations but no substantial evidence to support its claims nor does it give reference to the position outside of creationistic POV. Therefore it is another matter of POV vs empirical evidence.
:::Please withhold the quotes, there have been many scientists that have been misquoted or have their quotes taken out of context of what they were saying, quote mining is not a substitution for empirical evidence. I know not a molecular biologist that would say otherwise in regards to evolution's contribution to the understanding of Germ theory or Virology. In fact, many medications for the treatment of HIV are based on the evidence of HIV evolving resistance to the medications, due to the mechanisms discussed in TOE. Many antibiotics are also developed with this understanding of how bacteria evolve, once again through the mechanisms describe in the TOE, and are more effective at treating a patient. So the science behind the TOE is something applicable to the modern world and therefore would fall under the definition of operational sciences discussed in the article. However, consider that the distinction is only applied by those of the creationist POV and shown to only be useful in a broad meaning of sciences.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:14, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:::: I think reference 4 has adequate information. We are talking here about how to categorise different types of science; that's not something that you can provide empirical evidence on. It's more a matter of looking at the argument and seeing if it makes sense.
:::: I've seen creationists accused of misquoting or taking quotes out of context far more than I've seen scientists misquoted or taken out of context. In other words, it doesn't happen anywhere near as often as claimed.
:::: Surely germ theory started with Pasteur, who was an anti-evolutionist, which was my basis for disputing that germ theory has grown out of evolution.
:::: Your comment about HIV begs the question of what [[types of evolution|evolution really is]]. I would dispute that the gaining resistance to medication ''is'' evolution, as it involves no new genetic [[information]].
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:02, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::Good morning Philip. The categorization is one sided, that is the issue. Only those involved with creation sciences (meaning a select few Christian scientists) use the terminology. It is not accepted within the scientific community as a whole.
:::::Germ Theory was promoted by Pasteur but not started by him. Consider that the time that Pasteur was working on testing his hypothesis that the Origin of the species was out by ~10 years. Further developments within germ theory were developed from evolution based mechanisms. Pasteur's major contribution was showing that spontaneous generation as it related to fully developed higher organisms was untrue.
:::::Actually resistance to medication by Viruses has been shown in vetro to occur by mutations within the genome of the virus. HIV being a retrovirus replicates and mutates its genome far faster than bacteria and other viruses so you have many generations in a very short period of time, an hour or less. Because of this you can see the stages of mutation towards the medication and how the virus is able to adapt to the environmental stresses. Those that do not develop the mutations that allow for some adaptability to the medication's ability to block the virus from attaching to the cell do not replicate. This is why the HIV meds that are most successful today are targeting the reverstranscriptase of the virus to reduce its ability to mutate. HIV is a pretty simple virus as such it does not have many of the genetic correction mechanisms you find in other organisms, not to mention that RNA is more unstable than DNA and is prone to mistranscription. This is why there are so many different strains of HIV in the world, basically for each infection the virus mutates in that organism and acquirers different resistances to be passed on to a newly infected individual. This is one of the ways we can trace an infection back an originator within so many degrees.
:::::Evolution does not always involve new information as much as it involves a change in information. If you are using the new information frame of mind when dealing with evolution then you would have to say that a human's genome should be one of the largest in the animal kingdom (more evolved). This is shown to be untrue as there are insects with larger genomes. Think of the lottery when dealing with gene expression. The loci can change on chromosomes and allow for different reading frames for transcription. A slight mutation can totally change the entire transcription as well, sickle cells are caused by a single codon change during translation that changes the hemoglobin protein. If the mutation is carried to successive generations it is considered evolution. (Please remember that evolution makes no claims that it is positive or negative just that the accumulation of mutation can cause differences in organisms which can lead to speciation.)--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 08:50, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::Good evening TimS. That non-creationists conflate the two different types of science doesn't invalidate the clear distinction that exists.
::::::I find it hard to accept that a new field of study developed from a theory only ten years old; it would have taken longer than that just to have enough acceptance. Can you give me more details, such as who started the field of study?
::::::Most of the rest of your post is based on your last point, that evolution does not always involve new information. This is the critical issue. It is true that evolution ''as currently defined by evolutionists'' does include changes that don't increase information. It is just as true that evolution includes (and this is the popular sense) the descent of all living things from a common ancestor, ''and that this is only possible by the addition of enormous amounts of new genetic information''. Furthermore, it is true that it is this aspect that creationists disagree with; they have no problem with mutations, speciation, nor changes in gene frequency. It is the increase in genetic information that is needed for one kind of creature to evolve into another kind, and this is ''not'' what is observed in the examples that you provided.
::::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:26, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Philip, there is not a clear distinction since sciences work off each other. Molecular biology for example has roots from chemistry, organic chemistry, physics, biology, biochemistry, and genetics. One major area of molecular biology is evolution, at a molecular level. So would this be considered an origins science or an operation science since it is used for pharmaceutical development? This is one of the many reasons why the scientific community does not try the classification, it is not a clear classification therefore not useful to categorize a discipline.
::::Molecular biology really did not become a scientific discipline till the early 60’s upon the understanding of DNA’s role in genomic material in the 1950’s. So yes science fields have been shown to pop up under short periods of time, however roots for these fields are normally founded to occur much earlier. Girolamo Fracastoro, Agostino Bassi, Friedrich Henle and others had suggested germ theory.
::::Philip just to show you a little bit about genomic sequences, DNA is composed of 4 nucleotides. RNA is composed of 4 nucleotides. Between the two nucleic acids types we have a total of 5 nucleotides. RNA has a reading frame of 3 nucleotides per codon, encoding 20 amino acids, most proteins consist of thousands of amino acids. When you look at the number of amino acids that can be produced in relation to the number of nucleic acids coding for them you can see the versatility in the genome to produce large variance with the same genomic material. Not to mention the fact of chaperone proteins folding the translated polypeptide chain into different shapes allowing for different active sites on the same protein sequence, causes variance as well. Now with all of that out of the way I can explain the remainder of your statement. Your statement and emphasis of evolution as currently defined by evolutionists is misleading, this is the definition as defined and accepted by biological scientists world wide. Evolution is an accumulation of changes of genomic material that leads to phenotypical changes in an organism. Changes of genomic material do not necessarily mean additional genomic material. But to provide you with an example that organisms can receive additional genomic material through evolution lets look at one molecular mechanism that is responsible for the correction of DNA, nucleotide-excision repair. This is how it works, a segment of the damaged DNA strand is excised, and the gap is filled by DNA polymerase and ligase using the complementary DNA strand as a template. Sometimes this does not work correctly due to the biochemical properties of the environment, causing mistakes. If this mistake occurs during meiosis then there is a possibility of a duplication of material into the genome of that cell and is passed on to further generations from that cell. The reason for this is that nucleotide-excision repair is an ever constant mechanism, meaning it is occurring at all times. So if DNA synthesis is occurring during the S phase of meiosis, nucleotide-excision repair can cause a repeat in the reading frame of the DNA and add more sequence to the genome. This would inevitably cause an addition to the genetic material.
::::My last paragraph should explain why it is not necessary for enormous amounts of new genetic material to cause phenotypical changes in an organism’s offspring. Just compare the size of genomes between bacteria and insects, you will find several examples of bacterial genomes being larger than insects, as well as between insects and mammals. This is a straw man argument.
::::You can do the math in regard to the possible combinations of amino acids that can be coded from DNA and RNA and see a very large number of diverse proteins that can come from it but keep in mind that that is just the first level of protein development, most proteins go through several morphological changes before they become active, this is done with the addition of chaperon proteins, signaling proteins and other processes within the cell. The variance is more than enough to render the argument that an addition of genomic material is needed to express phenotypical changes and therefore speciation.
::::As for creationists having no problem with mutations, speciation, or changes in gene frequency, what can I say other than those are the base mechanisms for evolution. Mutations cause changes in gene frequency which over time cause speciation which is an evolved (meaning changed, not improved) form of the previous species. To be honest I do not see what the argument is about if Creationists have no problem with mutation, speciation or gene frequency variation.
::::--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:09, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: I agree that some fields overlap; geology, for example, has an ''operational'' component (studying the rocks as they are) and an ''origins'' component (trying to explain how they came to be the way that they are).
::::: You were trying to tell me that Germ Theory had its origins in evolution, but now you quote me Girolamo Fracastoro (1478‑1553) and Agostino Bassi (1773-1856) as being involved with the roots of the field, yet they predated Darwin's evolution! That doesn't support your point; it undermines it!
::::: It is incorrect to say that the "scientific community" don't make the distinction. I linked to a book by a member of the scientific community. Okay, ''most'' of them don't ''make'' the distinction, but how many of them deny it? And as I've said, there clearly ''is'' a distinction.
::::: Your description of "changes of genomic material" completely glosses over what direction the change is in. Does it ''increase'' genetic ''[[information]]'', or decrease it? Simply adding "genetic material" is not the same as adding genetic ''information''. The former is like adding random letters to a how-to manual, and the latter is like adding new instructions. The former is meaningless, but the latter conveys meaning. The hypothetical first single cell didn't have the genetic ''information'' for hair, eyes, skin, blood, feathers, etc. etc. To go from that first cell to birds, mammals, etc., evolution has to add ''information''—instructions for building those organs. Just adding sequences of A, G, T, and G, doesn't cut it; the genes need to have specific instructions to assemble specific amino acids to make specific proteins to build those organs. Natural selection doesn't provide that ''information''—it removes the less fit, it doesn't create new information. Mutations ''destroy'' information, they don't add it. Changes in gene frequency are not additions of new information.
::::: Mutations, natural selection (leading to changes in gene frequency) and speciation ''are'' proposed mechanisms of evolution, but they are insufficient mechanisms because they don't add information. Natural selection and mutations are also part of the creation model (natural selection was explained by a creationist prior to Darwin), but mutations are a ''downhill'' (information-losing) process, and natural selection is a mechanism that weeds out the less fit, but does not create the more fit. Speciation is a result of those and similar mechanism, but doesn't add new organs, functions, and abilities; it is the result of ''removal'' of genetic information.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:13, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't see what [[molecular biology]] has to do with [[evolution]]. In science, assertions and assumptions don't count. We need facts, and once we have them we can find out whether they confirm or contradict our theories. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:16, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:Ed, molecular biology studies the base mechanisms for phenotypical change. If you look at evolution with a reductionism mindset (which science does) you have to seek out the causes. Molecular biologists do just that with our field of study. When we discover mechanisms that allow for change in the genome that contributes to evolutionary theory. When we find conserved sequences in differencing species that contributes to evolutionary theory. That is what molecular biology has to do with evolution.
:I am a bit unclear what you meant with "In science, assertions and assumptions don't count." were you addressing my explanation of variance in genomic material? If so the processes I listed above have been observed and documented, you will find them easily in any molecular text or lab manual for biotechnologists, we have to keep them in mind while working or our research can get messy Lol.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:34, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Try using words in my vocabulary. Even my spell checker has never heard of "phenotypical". Do you mean a change in [[phenotype]]s? If so, what is a phenotype? And how much of [[molecular biology]] is concerned with that?

More to the point, what does [[molecular biology]] has to do with [[evolution]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:21, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

Ed, Molecular Biology has everything to do with evolution. Mutation is one of the core areas of Molecular study. As such mutation is the major driving force behind evolution. A phenotype is the expressed traits of a genome. I know that it was defined elsewhere. As such Molecular biology is concerned about phenotypes because it give the researcher an understanding of what proteins they are dealing with as well as what traits are expressed by the organism. Genetics is more involved with phenotypes than molecular biology but none the less it is still an important part of the science. Where as a geneticist studies the phenotype and the molecular geneticist studies the Genotype, a molecular biologist studies both. The molecular biologist is mostly concerned with the expression and signaling of molecular compounds in the cell and organism which is inclusive of studies of the phenotype (expressed traits) and genotype (base genetic code of the organism). These sciences with biochemistry work hand in hand and often compliment each other. I hope this clears things up a bit.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:13, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

==Status of biology==

Is biology purely a physical science? This presumes that life is purely a physical phenomenon. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:16, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
:If you don't think so, then you chose the wrong name when you renamed this article. It was about all sciences except perhaps ones like you mentioned when you changed it, psychology and economics. I'm not sure that the latter are strictly considered sciences anyway, and would be happy for this article to revert to its previous name. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:56, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

Biology would be considered a Physical Science but certain branches of Biology would not, such as behavioral biology, although there have been some research pointing to certain genetics inducing behavioral traits (in which case it would be). Substance dependence is one I am looking at now, not the chemical interaction that causes physical dependency but the psychological dependency of non-addictive substances, such as ETOH and certain sugars. I guess to make things a little easier to understand, physical sciences need to have a physical substrate to study. That area of life that you had implied, being not physical, is beyond physical sciences and that area is left to theology.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:02, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Natural science

2007-06-13T16:02:41Z

Tims: /* Status of biology */

== Irony ==

Isn't it it sort of ironic to reference a creationist on the 'science' page?

:For extra kicks: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Search?search=Apologia+Educational+Ministries&fulltext=Search How often Apologie Educational Ministries are used as reference] ;) I only made that search after a few blogs pointed it out. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:01, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== Peer review ==

Conservatives referencing science! This is like a construction company trying to build a modern building with a primitive hammer and wooden rivets, consulting from architectural plans interpreted through Aramaic, Greek, Latin and then English of whose origins you do not know and whose different pages contradict themselves. Personally I would much rather trust information that was obtained using only the soundest of scientific methods that was many times over peer reviewed and tested many times over accounting for as many variables as possible. Don't trust this method? You already do when you fly in a plane or drive your car (thermodynamics, aerodynamics, chemistry, metallurgy, physics, etc.) For peer reviewed information go back to school or consult wikepedia. For amusement, browse your heart away here!

:[[Peer review]] is no guarantee of correctness. It just means an article is good enough to be checked by other scientists. If an article fails peer review, it is either because (1) the research was so poorly conducted or described that there's no point in other scientists bothering with it, or (2) it represents such a challenge to established scientific belief that the journal chooses to suppress it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:27, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::Woah!!! PoV. How about "(2) Results are not supported by results from other researchers and cannot be explained according to our current understanding. Therefore, there is a good chance that the results are erroneous". If the data are good enough, they will be published. There is no incentive on a journal to suppress research just because it doesn't fit the paradigm. The only incentive is for the journal to not publish high-profile research which is later proved to be wrong, which is embarrassing for the journal. [[User:Aloysius|Aloysius]] 09:51, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::There is evidence that journals ''do'' decline publishing ideas that go against the currently-popular paradigm. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]]

I don't deny it. But Ed seems to be assigning some sinister motive on the part of the journals - suppressing new results - which isn't necessarily true. There is a reason why the currently-popular paradigm is currently popular - it's because that explanation is the one that, in the opinion of the majority of researchers in that field, best fits the available data. Any findings which run counter to the paradigm need to have exceptionally good evidence to support them. A journal won't want to run a "The current paradigm is completely wrong" paper if there's any chance that it will turn out that the paper is wrong, because that reflects badly on the journal's editor. In summary, the peer review system isn't perfect, but Ed's wording there presents a highly biased point of view (which is, of course, contrary to conservapedia rules). [[User:Aloysius|Aloysius]] 11:28, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:I'm not assigning sinister motives, but I do recall multiple instances of scientists whose papers were rejected - for reasons other than shoddy research or poor writing. ''Science'' and ''Nature'' do it all the time. And journal editors have been forced to resign for daring to publish well-written, carefully researched studies.

:This is nothing new. The history of science is littered with it. I'm reading [[Farley Mowat]]'s 1963 book ''Never Cry Wolf'', in which he exposes prejudice in the scientific establishment in Canada. People lose their jobs when they upset the applecart, especially when they use the leverage of facts (see [[Whistleblower]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:37, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

There seems to be a common fallacy that scientists are all about maintaining the status quo. But new discoveries are the driving force in science. New discoveries are what win Nobel prizes, and get big research grants, and get papers in prestigious journals. The peer review/paradigm system introduces a certain amount of inertia into the system which can be counterproductive (occasionally good research can be rejected initially) but in most instances helps to winnow out anomalous or wrong results. [[User:Aloysius|Aloysius]] 11:45, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

== "Operational" v "Historical" science. ==

My edit in this regard was reverted [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Physical_science&diff=147270&oldid=147240]. The only people who make this distinction are creationists. Philosophers of science don't. You won't find this distinction discussed anywhere other than on creationist websites, and it doesn't show up in [[Karl Popper|Popper]], [[Thomas Kuhn|Kunn]], [[Imre Lakatos|Lakatos]], [[Willard Van Orman Quine|Quine]] or anyone other philsopher of note in the area. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 10:55, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

==To be taken seriously==

Just as at Wikipedia, we here at Conservapedia require statements about what "most scientists think" to be backed up by reliable sources.

So Joshua's opinion [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Physical_science&diff=prev&oldid=147240] is irrelevant.

If Joshua is giving his opinion, because he thinks it is true and relevant, that can be tolerated, but only if (1) it helps explain the topic to the reader and (2) can be shown to be true by verifiable references.

I do hope that our visitors from Wikipedia will not lower their editorial standards when they come over here. We are <s>now</s> new and terribly understaffed. We have possibly ten good writers, while Wikipedia has thousands. If there are any good writers who are knowledgeable about science, they can help us if that's what they want to do. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:56, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

: Ed, in that case the entire section should be removed since the source is by no means reliable. Again, if you think anyone does this, I challenge you to find this distinction in any work by any serious philosopher of science. You won't find it. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 10:59, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::What source is unreliable? That sounds like what Wikipedian POV-pushers say, when they want to censor ideas they personally dislike.

::We don't do that here, because [[scientific censorship]] is untrustworthy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:03, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:Hey Ed, did you happen to look at the cite for that statement that Joshua changed? It has nothing to do with the differentiation of types of sciences. I believe Philip may have placed the wrong link in for his cite of the two different types. I am actually interested in this since I have never heard a distinction between what is considered "Operational science" and "Origins science" Have to say it is news to me but then again I have been in the sciences for 20+ years and could have missed it.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:05, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:: 2 to 1, ED is winning. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 11:06, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Ed You assert that calling a source unreliable is " sounds like what Wikipedian POV-pushers say, when they want to censor ideas they personally dislike". Why then is the Talk Origins Archive is so frowned upon on a source here? Note that even creationwiki by the way agrees that the distinction between operational and historical science is one used by creationists: [http://creationwiki.org/Science | this entry says "Creationists, unlike many anticreationists, differentiate between operational science with origins science" At minimum, to take Sarfati's claim uncritically is uncalled for. In fact, if Conservapedia accepted all claims as uncritically this wiki would quickly become a free for all. Suggested rewording "according to [[Young Earth Creationist]] [[Jonathan Sarfati]] there are two types of sciece: operational science and historical science" And I again invite you to look for any serious philsci that makes this distinction. Its even more unworkable than strict Popperism. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 11:10, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:TimS, can you clarify what you mean about the citation?
:I deliberately did not write that section to say that "science '''is''' subdivided into two types, but that it '''can be'''. Does anyone dispute that it '''can be'''? I would consider it self-evident that there is a distinction between the two, which means that it ''can be'' subdivided according to that distinction. The fact that most evolutionists refuse to recognise a distinction that clearly exists only shows them in a bad light.
:In fact, tonight I watched the DVD of a [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4978/ debate between a creationists and an evolutionist], and the evolutionist, whilst not using those terms, did acknowledge that with evolution one can't reproduce the results like one can with other fields of science, thus tacitly admitting that such a distinction exists.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:20, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:Philip, the citation does not illustrate the difference between the two types of sciences it asserts. It lists evolution as an origin science but disregards the fact that TOE has allowed for expansion to germ theory and also to virology. So that would place it in the operational sciences category. If you followed the literal interpretation of what was stated on the page all sciences would be considered operational, they contribute to modern society. --[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:34, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:I am sorry about the "Can be" and "Is" point. You are correct and I respect that you did not wish to assert something as fact without the evidence.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:34, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::[[User:Ed Poor|Ed]] we already have good writers who are knowledgeable about science, [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] and [[User:Philip_J._Rayment|Philip_J._Rayment]]. If anyone needs help with science articles I suggest people get in touch with them. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 11:37, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Auld, I will admit that Philip takes the time out to learn about the science before writing , however I would disagree about conservative. He tends to quote and misunderstand the what he is writing against.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:40, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::TimS, I assume that you are talking about reference 4. Surely the text under "Confusing ‘origins science’ with ‘operational science’; the real origins of science" of that link ''does'' cover what we are talking about?
::If it is true that germ theory and virology have grown out of evolution (which I would dispute), all that means is that ''those'' fields are 'operational science', not that evolution is. But I could show you quotes from evolutionists admitting that evolution has ''not'' contributed much to "real" science.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:55, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I do refer to reference 4. It has many generalizations but no substantial evidence to support its claims nor does it give reference to the position outside of creationistic POV. Therefore it is another matter of POV vs empirical evidence.
:::Please withhold the quotes, there have been many scientists that have been misquoted or have their quotes taken out of context of what they were saying, quote mining is not a substitution for empirical evidence. I know not a molecular biologist that would say otherwise in regards to evolution's contribution to the understanding of Germ theory or Virology. In fact, many medications for the treatment of HIV are based on the evidence of HIV evolving resistance to the medications, due to the mechanisms discussed in TOE. Many antibiotics are also developed with this understanding of how bacteria evolve, once again through the mechanisms describe in the TOE, and are more effective at treating a patient. So the science behind the TOE is something applicable to the modern world and therefore would fall under the definition of operational sciences discussed in the article. However, consider that the distinction is only applied by those of the creationist POV and shown to only be useful in a broad meaning of sciences.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:14, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:::: I think reference 4 has adequate information. We are talking here about how to categorise different types of science; that's not something that you can provide empirical evidence on. It's more a matter of looking at the argument and seeing if it makes sense.
:::: I've seen creationists accused of misquoting or taking quotes out of context far more than I've seen scientists misquoted or taken out of context. In other words, it doesn't happen anywhere near as often as claimed.
:::: Surely germ theory started with Pasteur, who was an anti-evolutionist, which was my basis for disputing that germ theory has grown out of evolution.
:::: Your comment about HIV begs the question of what [[types of evolution|evolution really is]]. I would dispute that the gaining resistance to medication ''is'' evolution, as it involves no new genetic [[information]].
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:02, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::Good morning Philip. The categorization is one sided, that is the issue. Only those involved with creation sciences (meaning a select few Christian scientists) use the terminology. It is not accepted within the scientific community as a whole.
:::::Germ Theory was promoted by Pasteur but not started by him. Consider that the time that Pasteur was working on testing his hypothesis that the Origin of the species was out by ~10 years. Further developments within germ theory were developed from evolution based mechanisms. Pasteur's major contribution was showing that spontaneous generation as it related to fully developed higher organisms was untrue.
:::::Actually resistance to medication by Viruses has been shown in vetro to occur by mutations within the genome of the virus. HIV being a retrovirus replicates and mutates its genome far faster than bacteria and other viruses so you have many generations in a very short period of time, an hour or less. Because of this you can see the stages of mutation towards the medication and how the virus is able to adapt to the environmental stresses. Those that do not develop the mutations that allow for some adaptability to the medication's ability to block the virus from attaching to the cell do not replicate. This is why the HIV meds that are most successful today are targeting the reverstranscriptase of the virus to reduce its ability to mutate. HIV is a pretty simple virus as such it does not have many of the genetic correction mechanisms you find in other organisms, not to mention that RNA is more unstable than DNA and is prone to mistranscription. This is why there are so many different strains of HIV in the world, basically for each infection the virus mutates in that organism and acquirers different resistances to be passed on to a newly infected individual. This is one of the ways we can trace an infection back an originator within so many degrees.
:::::Evolution does not always involve new information as much as it involves a change in information. If you are using the new information frame of mind when dealing with evolution then you would have to say that a human's genome should be one of the largest in the animal kingdom (more evolved). This is shown to be untrue as there are insects with larger genomes. Think of the lottery when dealing with gene expression. The loci can change on chromosomes and allow for different reading frames for transcription. A slight mutation can totally change the entire transcription as well, sickle cells are caused by a single codon change during translation that changes the hemoglobin protein. If the mutation is carried to successive generations it is considered evolution. (Please remember that evolution makes no claims that it is positive or negative just that the accumulation of mutation can cause differences in organisms which can lead to speciation.)--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 08:50, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::Good evening TimS. That non-creationists conflate the two different types of science doesn't invalidate the clear distinction that exists.
::::::I find it hard to accept that a new field of study developed from a theory only ten years old; it would have taken longer than that just to have enough acceptance. Can you give me more details, such as who started the field of study?
::::::Most of the rest of your post is based on your last point, that evolution does not always involve new information. This is the critical issue. It is true that evolution ''as currently defined by evolutionists'' does include changes that don't increase information. It is just as true that evolution includes (and this is the popular sense) the descent of all living things from a common ancestor, ''and that this is only possible by the addition of enormous amounts of new genetic information''. Furthermore, it is true that it is this aspect that creationists disagree with; they have no problem with mutations, speciation, nor changes in gene frequency. It is the increase in genetic information that is needed for one kind of creature to evolve into another kind, and this is ''not'' what is observed in the examples that you provided.
::::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:26, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Philip, there is not a clear distinction since sciences work off each other. Molecular biology for example has roots from chemistry, organic chemistry, physics, biology, biochemistry, and genetics. One major area of molecular biology is evolution, at a molecular level. So would this be considered an origins science or an operation science since it is used for pharmaceutical development? This is one of the many reasons why the scientific community does not try the classification, it is not a clear classification therefore not useful to categorize a discipline.
::::Molecular biology really did not become a scientific discipline till the early 60’s upon the understanding of DNA’s role in genomic material in the 1950’s. So yes science fields have been shown to pop up under short periods of time, however roots for these fields are normally founded to occur much earlier. Girolamo Fracastoro, Agostino Bassi, Friedrich Henle and others had suggested germ theory.
::::Philip just to show you a little bit about genomic sequences, DNA is composed of 4 nucleotides. RNA is composed of 4 nucleotides. Between the two nucleic acids types we have a total of 5 nucleotides. RNA has a reading frame of 3 nucleotides per codon, encoding 20 amino acids, most proteins consist of thousands of amino acids. When you look at the number of amino acids that can be produced in relation to the number of nucleic acids coding for them you can see the versatility in the genome to produce large variance with the same genomic material. Not to mention the fact of chaperone proteins folding the translated polypeptide chain into different shapes allowing for different active sites on the same protein sequence, causes variance as well. Now with all of that out of the way I can explain the remainder of your statement. Your statement and emphasis of evolution as currently defined by evolutionists is misleading, this is the definition as defined and accepted by biological scientists world wide. Evolution is an accumulation of changes of genomic material that leads to phenotypical changes in an organism. Changes of genomic material do not necessarily mean additional genomic material. But to provide you with an example that organisms can receive additional genomic material through evolution lets look at one molecular mechanism that is responsible for the correction of DNA, nucleotide-excision repair. This is how it works, a segment of the damaged DNA strand is excised, and the gap is filled by DNA polymerase and ligase using the complementary DNA strand as a template. Sometimes this does not work correctly due to the biochemical properties of the environment, causing mistakes. If this mistake occurs during meiosis then there is a possibility of a duplication of material into the genome of that cell and is passed on to further generations from that cell. The reason for this is that nucleotide-excision repair is an ever constant mechanism, meaning it is occurring at all times. So if DNA synthesis is occurring during the S phase of meiosis, nucleotide-excision repair can cause a repeat in the reading frame of the DNA and add more sequence to the genome. This would inevitably cause an addition to the genetic material.
::::My last paragraph should explain why it is not necessary for enormous amounts of new genetic material to cause phenotypical changes in an organism’s offspring. Just compare the size of genomes between bacteria and insects, you will find several examples of bacterial genomes being larger than insects, as well as between insects and mammals. This is a straw man argument.
::::You can do the math in regard to the possible combinations of amino acids that can be coded from DNA and RNA and see a very large number of diverse proteins that can come from it but keep in mind that that is just the first level of protein development, most proteins go through several morphological changes before they become active, this is done with the addition of chaperon proteins, signaling proteins and other processes within the cell. The variance is more than enough to render the argument that an addition of genomic material is needed to express phenotypical changes and therefore speciation.
::::As for creationists having no problem with mutations, speciation, or changes in gene frequency, what can I say other than those are the base mechanisms for evolution. Mutations cause changes in gene frequency which over time cause speciation which is an evolved (meaning changed, not improved) form of the previous species. To be honest I do not see what the argument is about if Creationists have no problem with mutation, speciation or gene frequency variation.
::::--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:09, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: I agree that some fields overlap; geology, for example, has an ''operational'' component (studying the rocks as they are) and an ''origins'' component (trying to explain how they came to be the way that they are).
::::: You were trying to tell me that Germ Theory had its origins in evolution, but now you quote me Girolamo Fracastoro (1478‑1553) and Agostino Bassi (1773-1856) as being involved with the roots of the field, yet they predated Darwin's evolution! That doesn't support your point; it undermines it!
::::: It is incorrect to say that the "scientific community" don't make the distinction. I linked to a book by a member of the scientific community. Okay, ''most'' of them don't ''make'' the distinction, but how many of them deny it? And as I've said, there clearly ''is'' a distinction.
::::: Your description of "changes of genomic material" completely glosses over what direction the change is in. Does it ''increase'' genetic ''[[information]]'', or decrease it? Simply adding "genetic material" is not the same as adding genetic ''information''. The former is like adding random letters to a how-to manual, and the latter is like adding new instructions. The former is meaningless, but the latter conveys meaning. The hypothetical first single cell didn't have the genetic ''information'' for hair, eyes, skin, blood, feathers, etc. etc. To go from that first cell to birds, mammals, etc., evolution has to add ''information''—instructions for building those organs. Just adding sequences of A, G, T, and G, doesn't cut it; the genes need to have specific instructions to assemble specific amino acids to make specific proteins to build those organs. Natural selection doesn't provide that ''information''—it removes the less fit, it doesn't create new information. Mutations ''destroy'' information, they don't add it. Changes in gene frequency are not additions of new information.
::::: Mutations, natural selection (leading to changes in gene frequency) and speciation ''are'' proposed mechanisms of evolution, but they are insufficient mechanisms because they don't add information. Natural selection and mutations are also part of the creation model (natural selection was explained by a creationist prior to Darwin), but mutations are a ''downhill'' (information-losing) process, and natural selection is a mechanism that weeds out the less fit, but does not create the more fit. Speciation is a result of those and similar mechanism, but doesn't add new organs, functions, and abilities; it is the result of ''removal'' of genetic information.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:13, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't see what [[molecular biology]] has to do with [[evolution]]. In science, assertions and assumptions don't count. We need facts, and once we have them we can find out whether they confirm or contradict our theories. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:16, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:Ed, molecular biology studies the base mechanisms for phenotypical change. If you look at evolution with a reductionism mindset (which science does) you have to seek out the causes. Molecular biologists do just that with our field of study. When we discover mechanisms that allow for change in the genome that contributes to evolutionary theory. When we find conserved sequences in differencing species that contributes to evolutionary theory. That is what molecular biology has to do with evolution.
:I am a bit unclear what you meant with "In science, assertions and assumptions don't count." were you addressing my explanation of variance in genomic material? If so the processes I listed above have been observed and documented, you will find them easily in any molecular text or lab manual for biotechnologists, we have to keep them in mind while working or our research can get messy Lol.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:34, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Try using words in my vocabulary. Even my spell checker has never heard of "phenotypical". Do you mean a change in [[phenotype]]s? If so, what is a phenotype? And how much of [[molecular biology]] is concerned with that?

More to the point, what does [[molecular biology]] has to do with [[evolution]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:21, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

==Status of biology==

Is biology purely a physical science? This presumes that life is purely a physical phenomenon. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:16, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
:If you don't think so, then you chose the wrong name when you renamed this article. It was about all sciences except perhaps ones like you mentioned when you changed it, psychology and economics. I'm not sure that the latter are strictly considered sciences anyway, and would be happy for this article to revert to its previous name. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:56, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

Biology would be considered a Physical Science but certain branches of Biology would not, such as behavioral biology, although there have been some research pointing to certain genetics inducing behavioral traits (in which case it would be). Substance dependence is one I am looking at now, not the chemical interaction that causes physical dependency but the psychological dependency of non-addictive substances, such as ETOH and certain sugars. I guess to make things a little easier to understand, physical sciences need to have a physical substrate to study. That area of life that you had implied, being not physical, is beyond physical sciences and that area is left to theology.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:02, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Ionic bond

2007-06-12T19:23:16Z

Tims:

An '''ionic bond''' is an electrical attraction between two oppositely charged atoms or groups of atoms. Normally, atoms are neutral and have no charge. However, in order to gain stability they will sacrifice their neutrality by either losing one or more of its outermost electrons thus becoming a positive ion (cation) or they will gain one or more electrons thus becoming a negative ion (anion). Elements that are described as "metallic" tend to lose electrons and elements that are described as "non-metallic" tend to gain electrons. Once this has happened then the resulting charged atoms will attract each other. That electrical attraction between two oppositely charged ions is referred to as an ionic bond. Most salts are ionic. Any metal will combine chemically with any non-metal to form ionic bonds that hold the molecule together.

===Polarity of the Ionic Bond===
Because the bonding electrons are literally under the domain of the non-metal in an ionic bond, the bond is said to be polar. Polar bonds generate a dipole moment. A dipole moment is an electrical force that is generated because of the unequal distribution of the bonding electrons between the two bonded atoms. In the case of an ionic bond that unequal distribution is extreme. The dipole moment that is generated is quite large compared to polar bonds of the co-valent bond.

A dipole moment is a vector measurement. A vector is a measurement that has a magnitude and a directional component. Any force (mechanical, electrical, magnetic, etc.) will be vector measurement. Examples would be velocity and forces. The other type of measurement is scalar measurement. These are measurements that have only a magnitude component but no directional one. Examples would be temperature, mass, speed, etc. Scalar measurements are handled differently than vector measurements when it comes to math operations. For example when you add or subtract scalar measurements you pay no attention to direction. With vector forces, you must pay attention to the direction and the angle between the vectors. Often the use of trigonometry is called for in order to resolve vectors.

===Characteristics of Ionic Compounds===
#Crystalline solids at room temperature
#Have higher melting points and boiling points compared to co-valent compounds
#Conduct electrical current in molten or solution state
#Are extremely polar bonds
#Most are soluble in water but not soluble in non-polar solvents

===What determines what the charge is on an ion?===

Elements combine to make the compound which is as stable as possible - the one in which the greatest amount of energy is evolved in its making. The more charges a positive ion has, the greater the attraction towards its accompanying negative ion. The greater the attraction, the more energy is released when the ions come together.

That means that elements forming positive ions will tend to give away as many electrons as possible.

Energy is needed to remove electrons from atoms. This is called ionisation energy. The more electrons removed, the greater the total ionisation energy becomes. Eventually the total ionisation energy needed becomes so great that the energy released when the attractions are set up between positive and negative ions isn't large enough to cover it.

The element forms the ion which makes the compound most stable - the one in which most energy is released over-all.

===Why is Calcium Chloride CaCl2 Rather than CaCl or CaCl3?===

If one mole of CaCl (containing Ca+ ions) is made from its elements, it is possible to estimate that about 171 kJ of heat is evolved.

However, making CaCl2 (containing Ca2+ ions) releases more heat, 795 kJ. That extra amount of heat evolved makes the compound more stable, which is why CaCl2 rather than CaCl is formed.

To make one mole of CaCl3, one can estimate that 1341 kJ of heat would be needed. This makes this compound completely non-viable. Why is so much heat needed to make CaCl3? It is because the third ionisation energy (the energy needed to remove the third electron) is extremely high (4940 kJ mol-1) because the electron is being removed from the 3-level rather than the 4-level. Because it is much closer to the nucleus than the first two electrons removed, it is going to be held much more strongly.

A similar sort of argument applies to the negative ion. For example, oxygen forms an O2- ion rather than an O- ion or an O3- ion, because compounds containing the O2- ion turn out to be the most energetically stable.

[[Category:Chemistry]]

Gene expression

2007-06-07T18:27:52Z

Tims: Article restored to original work as per discussion with Sharon: http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SharonS#Molecular_Biology

[[Genes]] are segments of [[DNA]] that contain the information required to make a [[protein]]. Gene expression refers to all the processes involved in converting genetic information from a [[DNA]] sequence, or [[protein]]. In [[prokaryote]]s, there are just two processes required: [[transcription]] and [[translation]]. In [[eukaryote]]s, there is an additional step [[RNA]] processing (splicing), which intervenes.

==Transcription==

The synthesis of a single-stranded RNA molecule using DNA as a template is referred to as transcription. The enzyme that catalyzes this reaction is known as RNA polymerase. Although the subunit structure and details of the process differ significantly in prokaryotes and eukaryotes, the chemical reaction is identical.

===Prokaryotic Transcription===
[[Image:Bacterial_rna_polymerase.png‎|left|thumb|Prokaryotic RNA polymerase]]
====Initiation====
Bacterial RNA polymerases are composed of multiple subunits. The core enzyme consists of 2 α, β and β′ subunits. This enzyme contains the catalytic activity for RNA synthesis. Association of the core enzyme with the σ subunit is required for initiation of transcription. This complex is referred to as the holoenzyme. The holoenzyme binds to DNA nonspecifically and scans for a promoter sequence. In E. coli, the most common type of promoter contains two conserved sequences centered at -10 and – 35. The σ subunit interacts specifically with these sequences in the double stranded DNA, positioning the active site at +1 (transcription start site). This complex is referred to as the closed complex.
 The second step in transcription initiation involves the unwinding of the DNA between the -10 region and the start site of transcription. This is referred to as the open complex.
[[Image:Image009.gif|left|thumb|RNA synthesis]]
[[Image:Image010.gif|right|thumb|Termination of Prokaryotic Transcription]]

====Elongation====
The first two rNTPs complementary to the DNA bind to the active site of RNA polymerase and the first phosphodiester bond is formed. Synthesis is always in the 5’ to 3’ direction and involves the nucleophic attack by the 3’OH on the 5’ phosphate with the release of pyrophosphate. After approximately 8-10 ribonucleotides are added, σ factor is released and RNA polymerase core enzyme moves away from the promoter, synthesizing RNA as it goes.

====Termination====
Transcription continues until a termination signal is reached. The current model is that the RNA dissociates from the DNA – RNA hybrid to form a stem-loop structure. The remaining AU base pairs are not strong enough to keep RNA hybridized with the DNA. Dissociation of the RNA destabilizes RNA polymerases and transcription terminates.

===Eukaryotic Transcription===
[[Image:Eukaryotic_rna_polymerase.png‎|Left|thumb|Eukaryotic Polymerase]]
The basic features of RNA synthesis are shared between prokaryotes and eukaryotes; however, transcription in eukaryotes differs in that it is significantly more complex. First, rather than having a single RNA polymerase, eukaryotes have three different RNA polymerases, each of which transcribes a different set of genes. RNA polymerase I transcribes three types of rRNA (the 18S, 5.8S, and 28S species), RNA polymerase II transcribes mRNA, and RNA polymerase III transcribes tRNA and the smallest rRNA (the 5S species). The eukaryotic RNA polymerases consist of between eight and fourteen subunits, with two of them corresponding to the β and β′ subunits of prokaryotic RNA polymerases.

All three eukaryotic polymerases have some homology to the E. coli core polymerase (α2ββ′), but also contain additional subunits not found in prokaryotes. In total, approximately 12-17 subunits (varies with the species) are required for activity in vivo, making eukaryotic polymerases much more complex than prokaryotic polymerases.
[[Image:Rna_polymerase_ii.png‎|right|thumb|Eukaryotic Polymerase II (PolII)]]
'''RNA Polymerase II'''

Near the carboxy end of Pol II’s largest subunit a unique region is found (CTD, carboxy terminal domain). This region contains a stretch of 7 amino acids that is repeated between 26 and 52 times (differences in the number of repeats occur in a species specific manner). During transcription initiation several amino acids in the repeat becomes phosphorylated.
[[Image:Rna_polymerase_features.png‎|left|thumb|Transcription of DNA with PolII]]
'''Promoters'''

A typical eukaryotic promoter is located from approximately -40 to +50 relative to the start site (+1). This is referred to as a “core promoter”, with additional regulatory sites being located nearby or at a large distance (enhancers and silencers). Within the core promoter several conserved sequences have been identified. The most prominent (though not found in all promoters) is the TATA motif (5'-TATAAA-3') or TATA box (Goldberg-Hogness box <ref>Lifton RP, Goldberg ML, Karp RW, Hogness DS. (1978). The organization of the histone genes in Drosophila melanogaster: functional and evolutionary implications. Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol. 42, 1047-1051. PMID 98262</ref>). Located at approximately -30, this highly conserved sequence is easy to identify. However, some promoters are missing the TATA box and through the analysis of these promoters other less conserved sequences have been found. Once is located around +1 and is called the Initiator element (Inr).

Although Pol II is very large and complex, it is unable to neither recognize specific promoter sequences on its own nor catalyze all the steps required for transcription initiation. It requires the help of several factors known as general transcription factors (GTFs). The factors required at most promoters are TFIIA, TFIID, TFIIE, TFIIF and TFIIH.
[[Image:RNAPII_holo.gif‎|left|thumb|Holoenzyme]]
'''Holoenzyme'''

TFIIE, TFIIF and TFIIH associate with RNA Polymerase II and another protein complex (the mediator) to form a holoenzyme. TFIIA and TFIIB are sometimes found together with the holoenzyme, and in other experiments they seem to bind independently. In any event, the holoenzyme is unable to recognize promoter squences and depends on TFIID binding at the TATA box. TFIIA and TFIIB bind to the DNA adjacent to the TATA box and also interact with TFIID.

'''TFIID'''

TFIID is composed of a single polypeptide known as the TATA binding protein or TBP, plus approximately 14 additional polypeptides known as TBP Associated Factors or TAFIIs. TBP specifically binds to the TATA box, causing a sharp bend in the DNA. It is this binding of TBP with its associated factors that begins the assembly of the remaining GTFs and the holoenzyme at the promoter.

'''TFIIE and TFIIH'''

After binding of the general transcirption machinery to the promoter, TFIIE and TFIIH assist Pol II in unwinding the DNA at the start site of transcription. One of the subunits of TFIIH is a helicase responsible for the unwinding and TFIIE binds to and stablilizes the single stranded DNA.

Another subunit of TFIIH contains a kinase activity responsible for phosphorylating the CTD region of Pol II. Although this activity can be influenced by many factors, in simple systems it is believed to correlate with the initiation of transcription and that movement of RNA polymerase away from the promoter.

===Summery of Transcription===

Although eukaryotic transcription is much more complex than prokaryotic transcription, initiation involves the same basic steps in both:
::# Promoter Recognition
::# Unwinding DNA around +1
::# Synthesis of first few polynucleotides
::# Release of polymerase from promoter

In prokaryotes, termination occures at discrete sites and translation can begin even before transcription has terminated. In eukaryotes, transcription continues past the site where poly-A addition occurs and then terminates randomly (frequently 500 bases or so down stream). RNA processing and splicing is completed in the nucleus before transported to the cytoplasm for translation.

==Translation==

===mRNA===
mRNA is not a passive player in translation. It is a nucleic acid, and as such contains digital information that can target the mRNA to different parts of the cell, and has a secondary and tertiary structure that can attract the attentions of regulatory proteins.

In eukaryotes, even before mRNA leaves the nucleus, it is extensively modified from the pre-mRNA that was synthesised by RNA polymerase. mRNA is capped at its 5′ end and complexed to cap binding proteins. It is spliced by U-particles, which tag mRNA and the spliced out lariats with different hnRNPs: SR-rich proteins bind exons and hnRNPs bound to excised lariats package them up and mark them for destruction. The 3′ tail of mRNA has a poly-A tail added, which is bound by PABP. All this must occur before export factors binds, and all these items are required for appropriate export from the nucleus.

[[Image:Mrna_export_ready.png|left|thumb|Export-ready RNA is really a ribonucleoprotein, with many associated proteins and RNPs.]]

mRNA can be targeted to specific places in the cytoplasm: the targeting sequences are found in the 3′ UTR (untranslated region).

[[Image:Untranslated_regions.png|left|thumb|The 5′ UTR contains the ribosome binding site. The 3′ UTR contains mRNA targeting sequences.]]

Targeting is essential to protein function: nerve cells in the hypothalamus (which secrete hormones from their dendrites) target their mRNAs. Vasopressin mRNA is directed to dendrites by a 400 nucleotide long sequence in the 3′ UTR. It appears that PABP, bound to this region, binds to cytoskeletal motors. Other mRNAs are also targeted: calmodulin dependent protein kinase II has a shorter 'Y' element (below), bound by TB-RBP (testis-brain RNA binding protein).

5′---AUG---UAG---AGAAGCCCTATGCT---AAAA---3′

The cytoplasm contains RNAses, and RNA is in any case inherently unstable to hydrolysis. However, different mRNAs have different stabilities: β-globin mRNA in young erythrocytes is very stable; whereas growth factor mRNA is very short-lived (t½ = 30 min). The length of the poly-A tail regulates half-life: it is slowly trimmed off like a time-fuse by an enzyme known as DAN. Some selected mRNAs have poly-A re-added (especially in oöcytes).
[[Image:Histone_mrna.png|right|thumb|Histone mRNA has a protective stem-loop rather than a poly-A tail.]]

Histone mRNA is unusual in that it lacks a poly-A tail and has a much shorter half-life (about 1 hr) than most poly-A mRNAs. Rather than having a poly-A tail, histone mRNA has protective stem-loop structure at its 3′ end. Histone mRNA is rapidly degraded at the end of S-phase (its half life drops to just 12 min).

Some mRNAs are also regulated by endonucleases that chop off the tail wholesale. This is seen in the regulation of the mRNAs of iron metabolism:
[[Image:Iron_metabolism_mrna.png|left|thumb|Iron metabolism is regulated at the level of mRNA stability.]]

#Ferritin sequesters iron.
#Transferrin transports iron into the cell.
#Cytosolic aconitase binds:
#Ferritin mRNA - this blocks ribosomes from binding by covering the RBS;
#Transferrin mRNA - this blocks the site of action of these endonucleases.

===Translation===
Transcription is 'easy': DNA and RNA are different 'dialects' of the same language. Translation is more 'difficult': it requires a code book (the genetic code) that converts the nucleic language to that of proteins.

Transcription reads the template DNA strand 3′→5′.
RNA polymerase synthesises mRNA 5′→3′.
Translation reads the mRNA 5′→3′.
The ribosome synthesises protein NH3+ → COO−.
It should be obvious, but note that the promoter is not the same thing as the start codon; nor is the RNA polymerase terminator the stop codon. There are generally untranslated regions (UTRs) at both ends of an RNA transcript, even in bacteria.

Translation requires the cooperation of:

mRNA,
tRNA (and aminoacyl tRNA synthetases),
rRNA,
Initiation, elongation and termination factors.
Translation has a low error rate: 10−4 for amino acids, and a speed of about 3 amino acids −1 (eukaryotes) to 20 amino acids s−1 (prokaryotes). These parameters are very similar (if measured per nucleotide) to transcription. Translation occurs on the ribosome.

Ribosomes consist of two subunits: a larger one (the LSU) and a smaller subunit (the SSU). Both subunits contain RNA (the larger contains two or three, the smaller just one) and large numbers of proteins (which are mostly structural). The large subunit contains the active site for peptide bond formation, which is a ribozyme (catalytically active RNA) called peptidyl transferase.
[[Image:Ribosome_sites.png‎|left|thumb|peptidyl transferase]]

The small subunit initially binds to mRNA like a latch, and also binds tRNAs at the A(minoacyl), P(eptidyl) and E(xit) sites. It controls information flow, whilst the large subunit controls the chemistry. Both help form the groove in which mRNA binds. The E, P and A sites are formed by both ribosomal subunits: the tRNAs interact with mRNA in the SSU P and A sites, whilst the synthesis of protein occurs in the P and A sites of the LSU.

Like transcription, translation may be divided into the processes of initiation, elongation and termination. Each step requires the action of several protein factors, RNAs and GTP. It also requires the 'forgotten' part of translation, the aminoacyl tRNA synthetases:

Aminoacyl tRNA synthetases answer the question: "How is tRNA associated with the correct amino acid?" The synthetase selects tRNA by its codon and/or other bases, and attaches the correct amino acid. There are usually just 20 synthetases, many of which must be able to recognise more than one tRNA, so they cannot discriminate purely on the basis of the anticodon.

Amino acid + ATP → Aminoacyl-AMP + PPi.

Aminoacyl-AMP + tRNA → Aminoacyl-tRNA + AMP.

==Initiation==
Initiation in eukaryotes starts with the formation of the eukaryotic 43S pre-initiation complex:
[[Image:Ribosome_initiation_1.png|left|thumb|the eukaryotic 43S pre-initiation complex]]
eIF1A blocks the A site. This is necessary to prevent tRNAs from binding inappropriately.
This blockage forces eIF2-GTP to recruit the special initiator tRNAimet to the P site. Only tRNAimet can bind a naked SSU.
eIF3 prevents binding of the SSU to the LSU. The combination of the SSU with the three initiation factors and tRNAimet is termed the 43S preinitiation complex.
The fourth initiation factor, eIF4A, which is a helicase, unwinds any hairpin loops in the mRNA, exposing the start codon (AUG).
[[Image:Ribosome_initiation_2.png|left|thumb|After eIF4a undwinds the mRNA, the 43S pre-initiation factor can bind and find the start codon.]]
The 43S complex binds to the mRNA and finds the first AUG and eIF2 then hydrolyses GTP, releasing the initiation factors and allowing the LSU to bind and form the eukaryotic 80S initiation complex.
[[Image:Ribosome_initiation_3.png|left|thumb|The eIFs are released and the LSU binds to for the 80S initiation complex.]]
Some mRNAs require additional factors to ensure correct expression at the ribosome: in picornaviruses (such as polio and hepatitis) the VPG protein binds the 5′ end (which is not capped) and directs the ribosome to the correct AUG start codon.

In bacteria, IF1, IF2 and IF3 play similar roles to eIF1, eIF2 and eIF3, and tRNAifmet is always the first tRNA. In both eukaryotes and prokaryotes, the special methionine is usually cleaved off the final polypeptide product. Furthermore, in bacteria, polycistronic mRNAs (which have several start codons) have Shine-Dalgarno sequences c. 5 nt to 5′ of the AUG start codons. This binds the anti-Shine Dalgarno sequence at the end of the 16S SSU rRNA, ensures that the ribosome binds at the correct place(s), not at an out-of-phase codon or an internal methionine.

mRNA: 5′-----AGGAGG-----AUG----3′

rRNA: 3′-…-auUCCUCCacuag---5′

===Elongation===
The A and P sites are so close on the ribosome that tRNAs must fit contiguous codons.
tRNAs are brought in by EF-Tu (bacteria) or EF-1 (eukaryotes), which hydrolyses GTP in so doing.
[[Image:Ribosome_elongation_1.png|center|thumb|EF-Tu brings in charged tRNAs to the A site.]]
The second elongation factor, EF-G (EF-2), shunts the ribosome along, again using GTP.
[[Image:Ribosome_elongation_2.png|center|thumb|EF-G causes conformational changes in the ribosome that shunt it along the mRNA.]]
This movement brings amino acyl and peptidyl groups together in the active site, catalysing peptide bond formation, and the transfer of the peptidyl group from one tRNA to the next.
[[Image:Ribosome_elongation_3.png|center|thumb|Conformational changes in the ribosome cause peptide bond formation.]]
The de-charged tRNA diffuses out of the ribosome via the E site. Note that the nascent polypeptide chain is always covalently attached to the acceptor stem of the tRNA in the P site.
[[Image:Ribosome_elongation_4.png|center|thumb|Decharged tRNA leaves the ribosome.]]
Peptide bond formation is performed by peptidyl transferase, whose active site contains an adenine ring from the 28S rRNA in large subunit. This performs and acid/base catalysis, just like histidine does in many enzymes. The antibiotic puromycin inhibits ribosomes by mimicking tRNAtyr and preventing the normal transfer of the nascent peptide chain from the tRNA in the P site transfers onto the tRNA in the A site.

===Termination===
Stop codons are bound by cytoplasmic release factors, which add water to tRNApeptidyl, cleaving off the polypeptide.
[[Image:Ribosome_termination.png‎|center|thumb|Release factors hydrolyse the peptidyl tRNA to release the polypeptide.]]
There are two release factors in prokaryotes (RF1 and RF2), but just one in eukaryotes (eRF1), which I think must be the only case where eukaryotes have evolved a simple, elegant system ☺ RFs mimic tRNA in shape, but are made of protein, not RNA.

Prokaryotes also have a special release factor called tmRNA, which provides a template for stalled ribosomes (ones that have stopped translating without meeting a stop codon, maybe because mRNA has been released too early by RNA polymerase). The tmRNA contains a template for an 11 amino acid tag, which marks these abortive proteins for destruction.

Two of the eIF4 proteins (of which there are several besides the IF4A helicase), eIF4E and eIF4G bind the mRNA cap to the PABP on the tail. This means that ribosomes form coiled structures on bound mRNA. Something similar also occurs in prokaryotes. These 'polyribosomes' increase the efficiency of translation, since less mRNA is needed (the ribosomes are only 80 nt apart, so many can simultaneously translate a single mRNA), and also allow efficient re-recruitment of terminated ribosomes back onto the RBS.
[[Image:Polyribosome.png|center|thumb|Polyribosomes translating a single looped mRNA.]]
Many antibiotics work on the ribosome or other aspects of transcription or translation:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!
! Prokaryote
! Eukaryote
|-
| mRNA synthesis
| Actinomycin-D,Rifampicin
| Actinomycin-D,α-Amanitin
|-
| Binding tRNA
| Tetracycline
|
|-
| Initiation complex
| Streptomycin
|
|-
| Peptidyl transferase
| Chloramphenicol
| Anisomycin
|-
| Translocation
| Erythromycin
| Cycloheximide
|-
| Premature release
| Puromycin
| Puromycin
|}

==Eukaryotic RNA Processing==

===Splicing===
Transcripts in eukaryotes are c. 10 000 nt, but polypeptides are 400 aa = 1200 nt. 80% of transcript is not translated, i.e. pre-mRNA is generally 7800 bases longer than a typical 1200 bp mRNA. What happens to all this excess RNA? Eukaryotic genes (and some Archaeal gene) contain internal 'junk' (discovered in 1977). Exons (which are expressed, and exit the nucleus) are separated by introns (100 - 100 000 nt long), which are removed from the pre-mRNA and destroyed without ever leaving the nucleus. The size of introns is species-specific: yeasts have very few, some human genes can have 50 in a single gene! Typically there are four introns within five exons, but the introns (as mentioned above) are generally much larger than the exons. Introns must be spliced out from between the exons before the mRNA can leave the nucleus.

5′---E1---I1---E2---I2---E3---I3---E4---I4---E5---3′

As mRNA is transcribed, it is complexed by five small nuclear ribonucleoproteins (snRNPs, also known as 'U' particles).RNAse treatment of pre-mRNA degrades pre-mRNA into heterogeneous ribonucleoprotein fragments. These proteins have a common RNA binding motif (below). Some of these hnRNPs are U-proteins, directly involved in splicing out introns, others are important for labelling introns and exons.

H3N+---{KR}G{FY}{AG}{FY}VX{FY}---…---COO−

Sufferers of systemic lupus erythrematosus (SLE) produce autoimmune anti-snRNP antibodies, which can be used to reveal islands of snRNP in nucleus, which are know as Cajal bodies.

Splice sequences are quite variable across species, but in general:

Exon1 ends AG (the donor site).
There must be internal A in branch site, which reacts chemically with the donor junction to effect the splice.
Exon2 starts G (the acceptor site).
5′ donor branch acceptor 3′

5′---AGGURAGU---CURAYY---YNCAGG---3′

5′---AGG---3′

The intron sequence is spliced out of the transcript to generate the processed mRNA. This is the human consensus sequence.

The U-particles combine with one another in a variety of ways to for spliceosomes. In the most typical splicing reaction, U1 binds the 5′ donor. U2 then binds the 3′ acceptor and bridge sequence. U4 and U6 act together to form a lariat, and then U5 ligates the exons together. Note that U2, U5 and U6 remain attached to the lariat in U-catalysed splicing. This helps mark the lariat for degradation.
[[Image:Splicing.png|left|thumb|Eukaryotic RNA Processing]]
Tetrahymena (a ciliate) and some Archaea have self-splicing introns. The snRNP system described above probably evolved from (type-II) self-splicing systems. Note that there are several other varieties of splicing, using the U particles whose existence you might be wondering about.
[[Image:U_and_self_splicing.png|right|thumb|Self Splicing]]

The donor and acceptor splice junctions are correctly paired off in multi-intron genes because splicing is concurrent with transcription. Some specificity may also be allowed by the hnRNPs and SR-rich proteins that bind to the pre-mRNA. Capping, splicing and poly-A factors are associated with the tail of RNA polymerase II: the enzyme complex is a factory, both producing mRNA and processing it ready for export.

Splicing seems to be an expensive waste of time for the most part; however, under certain circumstances, it has advantages in producing more than one gene product from a single stretch of DNA. In B-lymphocytes, early in development, the cell produces membrane-tethered immunoglobulin (Ig) receptors by transcription and splicing of the entire gene:

Long transcript:

5′---Ig---donor---stop---acceptor---hydrophobic---stop---3′

After splicing:

5′---Ig----hydrophobic----stop----3′

Protein:

H3N+-Ig-hydrophobic-COO−

The longer transcript splices out the first stop codon, producing an antibody with a hydrophobic carboxy terminus, which allows it to be tethered into the cell membrane. However, after the cell has recognised an antigen, it begins to produce soluble antibodies instead. Recognition of antigen increases the amount of CStF in the cell, producing a shorter transcript of the gene, which lacks the intron acceptor sequence:

Short transcript:

5′---Ig---donor---stop---3′

No splicing, because of lack of acceptor junction, so the protein is:

H3N+-Ig-COO−

The shorter transcript produces a protein with no hydrophobic peptide, which is plasma-soluble.

We've mostly been speaking about mRNA modification, but the other types of RNA are even more heavily modified (edited) than mRNA…

tRNAs are c. 80 bases long, and in eukaryotes, there are at least 31 in the cytoplasm, 30 in chloroplasts and 22 in mitochondria. All tRNAs have an acceptor stem with a 3′ CCA sequence, which (covalently) binds amino acids. They all also have a triplet anticodon, which (transiently) binds mRNA. The general structure is often termed a 'cloverleaf', which is true of the secondary structure, but somewhat misleading for the tertiary.

[[Image:Trna_phe_cartoon.png|right|thumb|tRNA encoding Phenylalanine, tRNA has 'L'-shaped tertiary structure.]]

Modification of the tRNA anticodon produces gibberish proteins. Chemical modification of tRNAcys to tRNAala also produces non-functional proteins. The anticodon/amino-acid pairing is essential to correct translation of mRNA.

tRNA contains unusual nucleosides. Inosine (needed for wobble). Pseudouridine (only in Eukaryotes and Archaea). Dihydrouridine. Thymine (unusual for RNA). Wybutosine (found just after the anticodon).

Chemical modification of tRNAs is performed by proteins, unlike mRNA splicing. One major effect of modification is to allow wobble. Wobble is the non-Watson-Crick pairing at the third base of a codon, which means that fewer anticodons (tRNAs) are needed than the 64 possible codons: 64 codons. 20 amino acids. 30 is the compromise made.

There is generally more wobble in bacteria (see bracketed bases below). Mitochondria even have wobble at the second base of the codon.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Wobble codon base
! Possible anticodon bases
|-
| U
| A), G, I
|-
| C
| G, I
|-
| A
| U, (I)
|-
| G
| C, (U)
|}

In trypanosome mitochondria, guide RNA (gRNA) guides excision and addition (insertion/deletion or indel) of bases (mostly U) to mRNA.

gRNA above; mRNA below:

3′---UU AUCUCAACCGACCA---5′

5′---AAGUAGAG~~GGCUGGU---3′

Note that the is G displaced and the AA causes stretching, so the edited RNA looks like:

5′---AA|UAGAGUUGGCUGGU---3′

With the G excised and UU inserted in the stretch.

== Bibliography ==
*Stryer, Lubert. Biochemistry, 4th ed. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company, 1995
*Tijian, Robert. "Molecular Machines that Control Genes." Scientific American 272 (1995): 54–61.

==References==
<references />

[[Category:Biochemistry]]
[[Category:Molecular Biology]]

User talk:SharonS

2007-06-05T14:46:14Z

Tims: /* Article creation drive */

Welcome to SharonS's talk page. Please enter any messages you have for me below.'''

'''Archives:''' [[User talk:SharonS/Archive1|1]]

==French Revolution==

I have made large alterations to the [[French Revolution]], any thoughts? [[stevendavy]]

:Wow! Your improvements to the article are amazing. I think it is a great candidate for the featured article section. ~ [[User:SharonS|Sharon]][[User talk:SharonS|Talk]] 10:46, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

==Formatting==

Excuse me, but could you fix the formatting error on this article [[American Values Club]]?? I am not sure how to.

thank you and God bless-

[[User:Truthseeker101|Truthseeker101]] 22:44, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

== Geometry terms ==

Hi there, I just noticed you have been playing with the geometry term list things, but I'm not sure where you are going with it.

Can I suggest that (like the other "term lists") they simply be removed? Categories are a much better way to group subjects on a wiki, since they are automatic. I did something like that to, I think, a musical instrument list that started from the "index" page. Example: say someone writes a nice article on a new geometry term. They would have to know, somehow, to add it to the term list. But any editor is likely to add <nowiki>[[category:geometry]]</nowiki>, which automatically adds it to the nicely alphabetized category page, and creates a link to that page as well.

The term lists may have served a function in the early days of the site, but are a redundant workaround when categories are available.

Just a thought. Oh, and PS, hope you're having a lovely Sunday! [[User:Human|Human]] 21:49, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:I think the categories are a great idea. I keep forgetting to put them on the pages I edit! I think the indexes are necessary for some of the very broad subjects (such as the history terms). These indexes are geared towards students and are intended to help them in their studies by outlining the most important facts they need to know. Having all the terms in one category is pretty overwhelming, and the alphabetical indexes help to divide the terms into smaller chunks. Also, the Indexes are much more accessible for students who don't know much about Wikis and how to use the categories, since they are right on the side bar. I personally prefer the categories, but think we should keep the indexes for the time being. Thanks, ~ [[User:SharonS|Sharon]][[User talk:SharonS|Talk]] 21:59, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Sorry. I will do that next time. Is there anything else I should know?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
:Thank you. I will try my best.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

==Forged Signature==

I was moving another user's comments from my user page to my talk page. That's all. [[User:Pendayho|Pendejo]] 20:25, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

== notice ==

Please direct new Sysops here: [[New Sysops Training Page]]

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:20, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

== Vandalism? ==

(Gulik2, here.) Just because you didn't LIKE the facts I posted, that doesn't make them 'vandalism'. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 17:42, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

Three days or banned again, eh? Hey, no pressure getting in the way of doing actual RESEARCH or anything there... --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:53, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

:Sharon, the above idiot was blocked, for doing what he did best, which was not research (like he claimed we didn't), not edit well (wrote like Dick and Jane), and just plain stupid all over. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:22, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

== Nice new entry! ==

Sharon, terrific new entry on [[perfectly contestable markets]]!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:33, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks! We have only 46 entries left to write before we reach 10,000! ~ [[User:SharonS|Sharon]][[User talk:SharonS|Talk]] 10:35, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Thanks for fixing that spelling so quickly on [[complementary inputs]]!!!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:47, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

:::You're welcome. ~ [[User:SharonS|Sharon]][[User talk:SharonS|Talk]] 10:49, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

==...as jazz is to 4/4 time... ([[Abstract Expressionism]])==
I don't think that's right. 4/4 time is very common in jazz. Think of ''Basin Street Blues'' or ''St. James Infirmary.'' [http://www.musicarrangers.com/star-theory/t19.htm This page] says "Common time is 4 - 4 is the traditional time signature for ballads, rock, jazz, Latin American, Spanish paso doble and many other idioms," and [http://www.pbs.org/theblues/classroom/essays12bar.html virtually all blues] is in 4/4 time. I think even boogie-woogie (as in Mondrian's "Broadway Boogie-Woogie") is usually notated as 4/4 time, although maybe it should be 8/8.

In fact Dave Brubeck's famous 1959 album ''Time Out'' and his signature piece ''Take Five'' were so attention-getting precisely because they explored rhythms other than 4/4.

Unless I'm missing your point... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:23, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

:You're right. I guess it should say something more like "as jazz is to Mozart". The point is that Abstract Expressionism went drastically away from the traditions for art. ~ [[User:SharonS|Sharon]][[User talk:SharonS|Talk]] 18:30, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

Please check your email.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:53, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

==Witchcraft==
<<Stop filling articles with liberal bias, as you did in Witchcraft. ~ SharonTalk 10:23, 23 May 2007 (EDT)>

Are you interested in the truth or do you honestly look at the world through rose colored glasses tinted to view only what you want to see?

I typed the truth, not a bit of bias was in what I said. Nor am I a witch. I am a Druid, which you had no problem allowing Druidry to be placed under Wicca as a subsection if Wicca. Druidry is NOT a form of Wicca and never has been. Wicca is less than a hundred years old with Druidry dating back to the Hibernia and the ancient British Isles. My family had to hide for hundreds of years because of the bigotry and bias coming from Christian zealots that claimed anything that was not Christian was evil.
If you are so sure Witchcraft and its followers are evil, then why even allow anything to be written on this list. It would seem you are the self appointed list monitor and guardian of the truth. Well the truth is regardless of what you believe is that a witch is not a devil worshipper or evil. It would appear to me the bias is on your part and your denial of letting anyone else say anything that is contrary to your beliefs.

Cha tèid nì sam bith san dòrn dùinte.

Lady Caillech Beara
Druid Council of Elders
An Clare
County An Clare
Ireland

:Interestingly, I don't believe there '''is''' a "Druid Council of Elders" in Co. Clare. Unless you have perhaps just created it. Perhaps you would enlighten me :) [[User:Fox|Fox]] 10:48, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

Actually I didn't say the Druid Council of Elders was in An Clare, but merely that I am from An Clare and now live in the United States. I am actually part of the House of Keltria.

The Henge of Keltria has a complex structure. The day-to-day running of the Henge is done by a Board of Trustees, which at this time should be composed of three or more members from the membership of the Henge of Keltria elected for three years terms, and four officers: President, Vice President, Secretary and Treasurer. All but the treasurer are elected by the membership at the annual meeting.

Theological direction is provided by a Council of Elders. This council is composed of no more than nine members elected from and by the active members of the Ring of Oak. The Council of Elders can override the Board of Directors and officers in all matters pertaining to the spiritual and philosophical goals of the organization. The spokesperson of the Council of Elders is the Arch-druid, who is elected from the Council of Elders.
Groves may be created by three active members. Groves must apply to the Board of Trustees for a charter and be approved by the Council of Elders to become a Keltrian grove. A newly formed Grove is designated a “seed-grove” until the Council of Elders chooses to remove that designation after review of grove activities. Groves must meet at least once a month.

If the grove leader is a member of the Ring of Birch (or higher), then the grove may be designated as a “Birch Grove.” If the grove leader is a member of the Ring of Yew and at least two other members of the Grove are members of the Ring of Birch or higher, a grove may be designated as a “Yew Grove.” If a grove leader is a member of the Ring of Oak and at least two other members of the Grove are members of the Ring of Yew or higher, a grove may be designated as an “Oak Grove.”

Keltrian Study Groups are informal groups of people who gather to study Keltrian Druidism and regularly practice Keltrian ritual that may be formed by any member.

Hope this explains it better.

Cailli

::Conservapedia is biased towards Conservative values and Christianity. The original witchcraft article reflected the Christian view of Witchcraft. Your edits added some good information, but they removed the Christian bias, and reflected a "tolerant" liberal view. I'm going to ask the Conservapedia Student Panel ([[User:CPanel]]) what they think about this issue. Thanks, ~ [[User:SharonS|Sharon]][[User talk:SharonS|Talk]] 11:49, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

==Geology Terms==
I created '''Category:Geology Indexes''' for a list of Geology terms. I would like this index to be similar to your one for the History terms, but I'm not sure how to continue. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]]) 19:14, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
:I figured out how to do this myself. [[Template:Geology Index]]. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]]) 11:32, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

::Great! I really enjoyed reading some of your pages on geology. ~ [[User:SharonS|Sharon]][[User talk:SharonS|Talk]] 15:22, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

== Number of articles ==

Hi Sharon: This is my first visit to Conservapedia. I was looking around at the site, and I noticed that the number of articles that you refer to on the main page doesn't match up with the current statistics on [[Special:Statistics]]. There's actually an easier way to keep the number of article pages updated on your main page, without having to update it by hand. You can add this template: <nowiki>{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}</nowiki>, which does it automatically. According to the site statistics, there's currently {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} pages on Conservapedia.

I don't mean any criticism; I just wanted to point out that there's an easier way. Unfortunately, that would mean possibly reserving the 10,000 articles celebration until the wiki's actually hit that milestone. Anyway, that's all -- talk to you later! [[User:Dannyhorn|Dannyhorn]] 14:09, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

: Wiki's statistics are too imprecise for us, and favor long articles over short ones. We use precise calculations here without the Wiki bias. But thanks for your suggestion, and Godspeed to you, Dannyhorn!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:14, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

::Oh, okay. I'm curious -- how do you make those calculations? As far as I know, the wiki statistics are just based on the number of articles with at least one internal link, not counting redirects. Are you guys counting redirects too? [[User:Dannyhorn|Dannyhorn]] 14:16, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

==Thanks==
Thanks Shar! That will be helpful when I'm writing articles on famous people and need a picture! ''':P''' ~ [[User:BethanyS|BethanyS]] 11:39, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

Thanks Sharon. Thanks for the nice comments on the Main page and my talk page. Your support is appreciated. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 00:14, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

:You're welcome. ~ [[User:SharonS|Sharon]][[User talk:SharonS|Talk]] 06:35, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

== Why South Africa Sucks ==

Thank you [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 20:37, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

:You're welcome. ~ [[User:SharonS|Sharon]][[User talk:SharonS|Talk]] 20:42, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

== Article creation drive ==

I created something new on the main page: [[Conservapedia:Articles That Need To Created]]

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:16, 2 June 2007 (EDT)conservative

:That's excellent! I'll try to fill in some of them as I have time. ~ [[User:SharonS|Sharon]][[User talk:SharonS|Talk]] 16:32, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

==Molecular Biology==
I noticed many articles popping up dealing with Molecular Biology, Molecular Genetics and Genetics. I saw that many of them are pretty short and are not specific enough to show the finer differences between certain topics. By chance are you using a text book for the article creation or recounting information you may have learned in a Biology class? I was waiting for a consensus on what age group we are supposedly writing for. Ed redirected my Gene Expression article because it was difficult for him to understand. It was written at an AP biology level taught in the US. I wanted clarification before editing any more articles and having several hours of work tossed because someone who has not been in a biology class in the past 5 years could not understand the terminology. If you are interested in having someone flesh out the articles let me know.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:46, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Transgenic

2007-06-05T14:37:05Z

Tims: New page: This is also done by viral infection of cell lines. Most plants are made transgenic due to virus infection with specified vectors.--~~~~

This is also done by viral infection of cell lines. Most plants are made transgenic due to virus infection with specified vectors.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:37, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Uracil

2007-06-05T14:34:24Z

Tims: New page: Uracil is a pyrimidine and in certain cases can change into Cytosine and back leading to point mutations.--~~~~

Uracil is a pyrimidine and in certain cases can change into Cytosine and back leading to point mutations.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:34, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Disease vector

2007-06-05T14:30:34Z

Tims: New page: A vector is the medium in which genetic material is carried. A chromosome is also considered a vector.--~~~~

A vector is the medium in which genetic material is carried. A chromosome is also considered a vector.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:30, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Linnaean taxonomy

2007-06-01T15:14:13Z

Tims: Later Developments of Linnaean Taxonomy

'''Linnaean taxonomy''' refers to the taxonomic system developed in the [[18th century]] by [[Carolus Linnaeus]] wherein life forms are classified according to a ranked [[hierarchy]].

The basic hierarchy (leaving out the sub- or super- ranks, and other more technical ranks) is as follows:

* '''Domain'''
** '''Kingdom'''
*** '''Phylum'''
**** '''Class'''
***** '''Order'''
****** '''Family'''
******* '''Genus'''
******** '''Species'''

Linnaean taxonomy was originally developed as a [[physicotheology | physicotheological]] system in which nature was viewed as another testament of [[God]] to be read much like the [[Bible]]. By seeking to document the patterns of concinnity in Creation, Linnaeus and his peers hoped to elucidate the mind of God<ref>[http://www.linnaeus.uu.se/online/history/natursyn.html "Linnaeus' view of nature"], Linné On Line</ref>. It was not originally meant to describe a system of biological descent, which Linnaeus, a devout Christian and creationist<ref>[http://www.linnaeus.uu.se/online/history/bibeltro.html "Faith in the Bible and Creation"], Linné On Line</ref>, would have considered shocking<ref>[http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/linnaeus.html "Carl Linnaeus"], biography</ref>. Linnaeus also applied his taxonomy to [[mineralogy]]<ref>[http://www.linnaeus.uu.se/online/history/mineralog.html "Linnaeus as a minerologist"], Linné On Line</ref>, but that usage has been superseded by [[chemistry | chemical]] classifications.

[[Evolution | Evolutionists]] inherited the Linnaean system from the Christian founders of [[biology]] and tried to adapt it to the Darwinian world view of ever-transmogrifying species. However, since the Linnaean system describes a fixed creation with no way for members of one order or family to move to another order or family, this Neo-Linnaean Synthesis has always been problematic.

While the system is still in almost universal use for the naming and categorizing of creatures -- especially in the form of the [[binomial nomenclature]], where species are given a scientific, Latinate name comprised of a generic and specific descriptor (e.g. the common [[wombat]] is known as ''Vombatus ursinus'') -- it has largely been replaced as a framework for describing origins by creation science's [[baraminology]] and the evolutionists' [[cladistics]].

==Later developments since Linnaeus==

Over time, our understanding of the relationships between living things has changed. Linnaeus could only base his scheme on the structural similarities of the different organisms. The greatest change was the generally understood classifications ought to reflect the [[phylogeny]] of organisms, by grouping each taxon so as to include the common ancestor of the group's members (and thus to avoid [[polyphyly]]). Such taxa may be either [[monophyletic]] (including all descendants) such as genus [[Homo (genus)|Homo]], or [[paraphyletic]] (excluding some descendants), such as genus [[Australopithecus]].

Originally, Linnaeus established three kingdoms in his scheme, namely [[Plant]]ae, [[Animal]]ia and an additional group for [[minerals]], which has long since been abandoned. Since then, various life forms have been moved into three new kingdoms: [[Monera]], for [[prokaryote]]s (i.e., bacteria); [[Protist]]a, for protozoans and most algae; and [[fungus|Fungi]]. This five kingdom scheme is still far from the [[phylogeny|phylogenetic]] ideal and has largely been supplanted in modern taxonomic work by a division into three domains: [[Bacterium|Bacteria]] and [[Archaea]], which contain the prokaryotes, and [[Eukaryote|Eukaryota]], comprising the remaining forms. This change was precipitated by the discovery of the [[Archaea]]. These arrangements should not be seen as definitive. They are based on the [[genome]]s of the organisms; as knowledge on this increases, so will the categories change.

== References ==
<references/>

Talk:Fictional technology

2007-05-29T14:02:40Z

Tims: New page: I would not include BioEngineering in this list. This link has many examples of bioengineered bacteria and viruses. http://www.genetics-and-society.org/resources/items/20000925_sfchron_a...

I would not include BioEngineering in this list. This link has many examples of bioengineered bacteria and viruses. http://www.genetics-and-society.org/resources/items/20000925_sfchron_abate.html --[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:02, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Gene expression

2007-05-29T11:26:08Z

Tims: /* Utterly unsatisfactory */

Still working on this but have to head to lunch.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:04, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

:If you can translate all that jargon into plain English, I'll be able to read it and understand it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:10, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

::LOL jargon:) There will be pictures:). When I finish it up it will be clear enough for a 10th grade reading level with a basic understanding of biology.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:12, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

:You might have to bring it down to a 5th grade reading level, if your idea of a "basic understanding" entails a familiar acceptance of evolutionary dogma. Can you explain it all in terms as simple as the naturalist [[Farley Mowat]] used in ''[[Never Cry Wolf]]''? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:40, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::Ed, I really do not understand your statement "if your idea of a "basic understanding" entails a familiar acceptance of evolutionary dogma", was this suppose to be a personal attack? The information I have placed about gene expression is observed molecular mechanisms. Anyone who has any background in molecular biology or biochemistry will not dispute what I have listed thus far. There is no need to understand evolution to understand gene expression, however there is a need to understand gene expression to understand evolution (How can you be objectively critical of a theory if you do not understand the fundamental information of why the theory works?). As far as bringing it down a notch, I would like to point out that the states of Michigan, Ohio, Maryland, West Virginia, California, Texas, Florida, Illinois and Washington starts teaching gene expression and mechanisms in their high school biology classes. Believe it or not, I actually had it in the late 80's in West Virginia (although not to the level of detail that it is taught nowadays). Everything I have listed thus far, including terminology, is used readily in biology classrooms. Things have changed quite a bit since you or I were in secondary school. Most of the stuff I learned as an undergrad is now taught in the beginning years of high school, calculus at 10th grade who would have imagined. Even the stuff I had to learn in grad school (early 90's) is now commonly taught information in most university's undergraduate courses. I am still working on the article and adding images to better illustrate what the mechanisms are. If you wish to dispute what I have provided then feel free to look up a basic biochemistry text.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 09:21, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

==Sorry this is so long==
Perhaps I should break it up a bit, I still have translation left.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 09:59, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

==Utterly unsatisfactory==

Your submission was just barely good enough not to be deleted, but after 4 weeks you still didn't produce a readable article. It's not something you can toss off before lunch. Consider the possibility that you have bitten off more than you can chew.

First, explain what a gene is. You might also have to explain what a [[cell]] is, and what function [[gene]]s have within the cell, their role in [[cell division]], and what all that has to do with [[DNA]].

Secondly, no, I did not mean to launch a personal attack on you. I really think that a lot of contemporary biology is mixed up with evolution advocacy. All I meant was that I need you to sort out what is known (i.e., observed facts) from speculations about how cells and genes "began to act they way they do." You must first describe what they actually do, before you speculate on what natural forces or principles set them up (like a designer would) to start doing what they do.

Third, we need clear, readily comprehensible articles on [[molecular biology]] and [[biochemistry]]. Our readers should not have to go find a basic biochemistry text to find out whether our article is correct or misleading. Have you read anything by [[Michael Behe]]? Try to write as clearly as he does. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:32, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:My submission is good enough to have been published as a co author of a textbook on molecular genetics. This article was about gene expression not genes themselves. There was already another article about genes. I hate to say this but once you start going into this level of detail you have to assume the reader has a basic knowledge of cellular biology. Nothing that was written was beyond a current American High School AP biology class.
:If you wanted the article shorter how could a description of DNA and Genes be introduced when the article was too long as it was, with just a description of gene expression. I never even go so far as to explain protein formation from the expressed genes.
:Ed, there is no evolution advocacy on gene expression, all of what was described has been seen in the lab. We have seen the interaction between DNA and the protein complexes that make RNA from it. There is a difference between theory and fact, gene expression is a pure fact. You can not list what the proteins do that are formed through the expressed genes without describing the gene expression process to begin with. There is no speculation on the molecular and chemical interaction that produces gene expression, it has been observed countless times. If you really need me to describe how we observe it I will but this is far from "speculation".
:Ed, as for finding a basic biochem text to verify our articles, well what else would they use to verify an article about biochemistry? Just because the article is dumbed down does not mean that it is correct, in fact it is usually the inverse. Last thing, no one has established what base education our readers may have so it is a moot point to dumb down articles when an undergrad may use the information.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 07:26, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Patterns of biological evolution

2007-05-25T16:06:38Z

Tims: /* Additional New Genetic Information */

Still working on fleshing this out.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:14, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

:That's one of the biggest articles to appear in one hit that I've seen! Pity it's mostly fiction. But as it is very popular fiction, I guess it needs to be documented. And critiqued, of course. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:53, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

::I invite you to submit your thesis to peer review, Phil. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:26, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Any article I put on Conservapedia is effectively open to peer review, as is TimS' contribution here, which I hope to peer-review. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:36, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

::I welcome the peer review, consider the number of biologists that have already reviewed the information I have presented. I will be adding links to the examples and please look at the existing research publications I cited. PubMed is where most of the research articles are from.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:40, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

::Back to work on [[Gene expression]]--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:40, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

This sounds like breaking news to me. The journal article is less than 3 years old, which means it's either a new theory or it's the first time anyone has found evidence for an old theory. (Or maybe we need to do a little more digging and write the article better.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:19, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:The first recorded instance of work of this kind is 1878. That probably ''is'' breaking news to the our up-to-the-minute-science creationists ;). [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 09:17, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Let's have less sarcasm and more useful information, okay? What the article needs is proof that 'divergent evolution' has ever appeared. If there's nothing online you can point to, perhaps you can type in a journal article? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:23, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:I cited three peer reviewed articles. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:24, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::Good. Now summarize them. Do not act as the [[Kyoto Protocol]] supporters do, and claim that something is "supported" by scientists. Actually show the scientific evidence, if any, those scientists have offered which support the theory in question. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:30, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::The summary is that divergant environmental conditions leads to divergant evolution. The evidence is within the papers. You can check the abstracts if you wish (they summarise the entire paper). [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:34, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:Ed, did you look at the 7 research papers I gave on your talk page about scientific findings of divergent evolution? I hope you are not misunderstanding the term divergent with macroevolution. If so then it is understandable why you are refusing to address the evidence. Look at my description of divergent evolution and then look at my description on the macroevolution page. You will see that there is a fundamental difference in the two terms. Divergent evolution can be applied as what happens when a bacterium mutates to have an antibiotic resistance and its progeny have the same resistance.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:29, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::I wish to clarify the point I made about the bacteria resistance, I am talking about mutations to the genome not to the plasmid. Bacteria can pass plasmids between each other rapidly and the colony can gain the genetic material this way. The mutation to the bacteria genome would be the example of divergent evolution, not the plasmid passing.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 15:10, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I saw no evidence in the article of the first claim made, so I cut the rest of it. If you had submitted that to me as a science teacher, you'd have gotten an F. Although maybe your school has different standards, here we are building a trustworthy encyclopedia.

If you've read something which convinces you of divergent evolution or macroevolution or [[natural selection]] or anything like that, I hope you will summarize it in terms our readers can understand. Then they can look up any references you give which back up your summary. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:35, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:Ed are you saying you did not understand the article? "Parallel diversification of Australian gall-thrips on Acacia." The very first sentence of the abstract "The diversification of gall-inducing Australian Kladothrips (Insecta: Thysanoptera) on Acacia has produced a pair of sister-clades, each of which includes a suite of lineages that utilize virtually the same set of 15 closely related host plant species." states the divergence. If you are not versed in scientific literature then let me know, I offer to rewrite the abstracts in layman's terms. I would have to mention about the science teacher comment, if your version of a science teacher failed that paper then they showed a lack of understanding of scientific literature and would not be capable to critique it. I have to take my son to the Dr.s so I will continue upon my return.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:46, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::I did summarize it. Divergant environment conditions causes populations to diverge. It's done virtually every day with bacteria, and very commonly with mice. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:40, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:For all of this talk we still have not addressed the issue of the other two types of evolution being removed from this article.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:32, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

==Thanks for the revert==

Thanks Philip for the revert and I will start working on the remainder of the article as soon as I am done with Gene Expression. Do we have a template for large articles that are still works in progress?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 15:13, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:I don't think so, but look in the [[help:templates|list of templates]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:23, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

== Parallel evolution ==

It's not clear (to me at least) what the difference is between convergent evolution and parallel evolution. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:28, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

:Parallel evolution would be when two different species evolve together after a symbiotic relationship had been established, like a parasite and its host.

:Convergent evolution is when two different species who do not share a symbiotic relationship evolve similar traits due to selective pressures of the environment.

:The difference between the two is based on the symbiotic relationship. The examples should provide a difference, whales and fish having similar shaped bodies for moving through water would be convergent evolution whereas a tick and a deer evolving together where the tick is only found on a certain species of deer and has selective traits for that host, such as additional enzymes to help break down a protein found only in that deer species.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 14:37, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks. Is there a reason that the article doesn't mention symbiotic relationships them? Or is it just one of those things that you never got around to completing? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:10, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I never got around to tweaking it. There are many examples but I wanted to find something that did not include a louse and dog. Lol, something more interesting would be better for this page.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 09:04, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

== Additional New Genetic Information==
This is very misleading. Evolution does not require an addition of new genetic material to occur, a rearrangement of current material can produce drastic results. Let’s look at sickle cell anima for example. Its primary cause is due to a hydrophilic glutamate (Glu) being substituted by the hydrophobic valine (Val), which reduces the solubility of ß-globin. In this case, this mutation causes hemoglobin to form linear polymers linked by the hydrophobic interaction between the valine groups causing sickle-cell deformation of erythrocytes. This mutation is genetically passed between heterozygous carriers and helps to fend off the protozoa that cause malaria. Homozygous carriers tend to have complications due to a reduction of O2 in the blood volume. This is all due to a single point mutation of a codon that switches adenine to uracil during transcription, the DNA has the point mutation of an adenine changing to a thymine. This is not based off of new genetic material but off existing genetic material. The genomic size is the same as before since there was not an addition of nucleotides. Many proponents of evolutionary theory use the "increase of genetic material" argument but it is considered unfounded since complexity is not proportional to genomic size, just the order in which it is arranged.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 15:08, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

: Whether or not evolution requires new genetic information is, in a sense, the crux of the whole debate. You ''cannot'' go from the supposed first living cell to the variety of life that we have today ''without'' the addition of new genetic [[information]], so I would argue that evolution most certainly ''does'' require the addition of new genetic information.
: However, that doesn't mean that new genetic information is the only mechanism of change. The question is whether other changes are called "evolution". Evolutionists do call other such changes "evolution", but creationists do not. So who is correct? The creation/evolution debate is not over these other changes, but over the single-cell-to-all-life (or "goo-to-you") changes, and evolutionists describing ''any'' change as "evolution" in order to justify goo-to-you evolution is quite misleading.
: But if there is a specific wording in the article that you think could be better worded, be my guest in changing it, or proposing a specific change.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:21, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

::Philip, I will agree that you can not go from the first organism to what we have today without an increase in genomic material but this view is very narrow when trying to state that the material is proportional to the complexity of the organism. Review these two websites about genomic size and organisms http://www.genomesize.com/ http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/02_01/Sizing_genomes.shtml Notice that the ''Amoeba dubia'' is the largest genome we have recorded in nature, 10^2 larger than the human genome but not a complex creature. Viral genomes tend to be on the small size but once you move into the land of living organisms you find a huge variance in sizes of genomic material of the simple life forms. In the case of the Amoeba the genomic size is large enough to accommodate the human genome plus more. So the difference between the Amoeba and the human is how the nucleotides are arranged. This is an extreme example but it does show that size really does not matter when it comes to genomic material.
::Your question about who is correct, evolutionist's call it evolution but what do the creationist’s call it? If microevolution is held in creationist's eyes as being true then why could something such as macroevolution be false (have to point out that macro and micro evolution are only terms used by creationists whereas in the biological science community there is not an official distinction)? The only real difference between macro and micro evolution is a matter of time. With the accumulation of changes from microevolution how can it be perceived that macroevolution could not happen? Not to mention when studying the skeletal structures of a broad spectrum of organisms you find amazing similarities, which coupled with genomic mapping, give you an amazingly accurate family tree. So I postulate that the only reason why macroevolution is not held in a favorable view of creationist that hold microevolution as truthful is based entirely on the amount of time that it would take to have this occur. (As a side note I noticed a posting a while back asking why the human population is not larger, the answer is that the rate of growth of the human species has increased considerably over the last 500 years due to changes in science and ways of life. When humans were hunters and gatherers the birth rate was much lower due to poor diet and times of famine. With the advent of agriculture stabilization occurred in the dietary portion of the human lifestyle which allowed for a higher birthrate. As many tech advancements happened the growth rate increased to eventually what we have today. You can look up the data of third world nations and see the birth rate and life expectancy rates are far different then those in 1st world countries, this supports the rate changes)
::It is interesting that you postulated that evolutionists claim any change as evolution, this is untrue. Whereas bacteria can gain antibiotic resistance through two different methods, by chromosomal DNA or by plasmid DNA, only the mutations in the chromosomal DNA would count as evolutionary. This is due to bacteria freely sharing plasmid DNA with each other in their colonies. The ability to share the information would be an evolutionary step but the actual sharing of information would not be, if based on the plasmid DNA transfers. However, mutation in the chromosomal DNA does allow for the progeny of the bacteria to have the same resistance from the parent bacteria. So, an example of what is and what would not be evolution. There are specific mechanisms that are classified as evolutionary, however it takes a very educated person in the biological sciences to be able to point out several of these mechanisms, and I can only list a few and all dealing with molecular systems. So the general layman does not have the background often to distinguish the differences in what constitutes as evolution and what does not, often enough most just label it all as evolution by default. A Biologist (any specialty) would not make a sweeping generalization of the mechanisms if they understood that their audience understood some of the finer points of the science. This, however, happens in many field of study.
::I will have to look through it a while to see about any changes, I will list them on the talk if I find any.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 09:02, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

::: I don't believe that I ever said that the size of the genome and complexity. You seem to be assuming that [[information]] can be measured by the size of the genome, but this is only a Shannon or statistical definition of information, suitable for calculating storage and transmission capacity of data, but not a measure of the amount of information. I've just updated [[Information#Measuring_information|Information]] to explain this point.
::: Creationary scientists these days avoid talking about microevolution and macroevolotion[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2996#micro_macro], because it misses the point about [[information]]. And the point is that the generation of new genetic information is not an extrapolation of the loss of genetic information; they are opposites, not one a larger version of the other. So your entire argument about based on the similarity between micro- and macro-evolution misses the point. Incidentally, use of the terms microevolution and macroevolution has not been exclusively by creationists.
::: The rate of human growth that you mention is a rationalisation, not an observation.
::: As for the claim that any change is evolution, I may have overstated the case a touch, but when evolutionists define evolution as "[[definitions of evolution#Gene_frequency|any change in gene frequency in a population]]", that comes pretty darned close. And I've seen transfer of genetic material used by evolutionists attempting to refute the creationist anti-evolutionary argument that no increase in genetic information has been observed. In effect, they are quoting that as an example of evolution.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:08, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

::::You did not say anything about it in your writings, however, most of the sites that are sourced for argument against evolution talk about the need for an increase of genetic material. I personally do not link information with size because information in a very subjective area, what is considered information and what is junk? The genome is only half of what is needed to produce the results for the organisms we have today, you must take into account protein folding. A single translation can result in a protein that has many different functions based off its physical structure (active site locations). But with all of that a side, what matters is what information means, to a biologist genetic material that produces proteins would be considered genetic information, the amoeba I gave as an example produces proteins from all of its genome. I did notice the update in the information page, thank you for the edit.
::::The micro and macro stances, I see it used all of the time on uncommondesent. Behe and Demski use it often to refer to different mechanisms of evolution, to either validate their claim or invalidate their opposition’s claims. It has been used by many of the creationist organizations in the US still. I do not understand your statement of loss of genetic information. If I interpret what you said correctly then it would not be a loss of genetic information as much as a modification of genetic information. For example sickle cell anemia. If you have it only the cells that contain the allies for it will produce those proteins. This is why the heterozygous carriers do not exhibit the phenotype typical of a homozygous carrier. This is just an example where you have the mutation but also retain past characteristics. But beyond that, how can you not state that macroevolution is not an extrapolation of microevolution when the continued buildup of mutations changes the organism in physiological ways? Compare homin genome with ape genomes, you will fine similarities in the genomes that attribute to structural and morphological similarities plus genes responsible for the differing traits between the geniuses. Genomic caparisons have been performed on a verity of fish providing for linking of families, geniuses and species, where the differentiation is based on a few hundred differing proteins. You can also research the pax6 gene line and see the morphological development of sensory organs in differing organisms, this gives an amazing account of the genetic similarities between organisms and also providing a well studied history of the mutations of the pax6 gene and the outcomes from the mutations (from compound eyes to human eyes).
::::A rationalization with many supportive observations. Humans have been recording birth and deaths for centuries, to look at this data and deny that the human race has not experienced a change in its birth rate is to deny the evidence that shows it. Whereas linking the data with technological development timelines maybe a rationalization attempt, the overall study of population growth and birth rates is observation and shows a change in said rate.
::::I have seen the claims before, I agree many can be deceptive, however it is once again up to the reader to verify the source of the claim. A masters student knows more than an undergrad but a PhD knows more than a masters. This is why I often point out that a physicist should stick to explaining physics and not try to explain biology and why a biologist should stick with biology and not explain physics. Many of the posts on the AIG site are by people who are outside their area of expertise, not to mention very few with degrees higher that a masters. This holds true for some pro-evolution sites as well. I have a friend who believes in aliens landing on the planet. I tell him the same I tell everyone, check the sources and see if they really are qualified to report on what they are claiming and check to see what motivation they have for doing so.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:06, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Patterns of biological evolution

2007-05-25T13:04:26Z

Tims: /* Parallel evolution */

Talk:Patterns of biological evolution

2007-05-25T13:02:57Z

Tims: /* Additional New Genetic Information */

Talk:Patterns of biological evolution

2007-05-24T19:08:28Z

Tims: /* Debunking the need for additional genetic matieral claim*/

Talk:Patterns of biological evolution

2007-05-24T18:37:33Z

Tims: /* Parallel evolution */

Gene expression

2007-05-21T21:13:57Z

Tims:

Genome

2007-05-16T14:22:23Z

Tims: Undo revision 163754 by Special:Contributions/TK (User talk:TK) Why remove factual statements with supporting evidence and research in relation to genome studies?

A genome is all the [[hereditary]] information held by an [[organism]], this includes both expressed and non-expressed [[genetic information]]. It is usually stored in [[DNA]] though the [[Retrovirus]] stores it in [[RNA]].

[[Eukaryotic cell|Eukaryote]]s (including humans) actually have two types of genomic material:
# chromosonal material: Information found inside the nucleus of a cell
# mitochondrial material: Information found inside a cytoplasm of a cell, specifically in the [[mitochondria]] (this separate genome is used as evidence for the [[Endosymbiotic hypothesis]]).<ref>http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=3580</ref>

The [[Human Genome Project]] mapped the genome of humans (''Homo sapiens'') in a 13-year study, and is considered one of the marvels of modern human [[medicine]] and [[biology]]. All of the information is stored in a database.<ref>http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/home.shtml</ref> It is expected that the results of the project will allow scientists to predict how genetics influences drug interaction with the body, and lead to target specific drugs.<ref>[http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/285/5/540?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=Implications+of+the+Human+Genome+Project+for+Medical+Science&searchid=1119480529280_6292&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&journalcode=jama]</ref>

Genomes of other species have been recorded as well, such as mice,<ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome/guide/mouse/</ref> chimpanzees<ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/chimpgenome/index.html</ref> and yeast.<ref>http://www.yeastgenome.org/</ref> The mouse genome sequence from the C57BL/6J strain has about 30,000 genes, and 99% of them have direct counterparts in humans.<ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v420/n6915/full/420509a.html</ref>

The chimpanzee represented the first non-human primate sequenced. The differences in the chimpanzee and human genomes are small, with 99% of the DNA sequence preserved. <ref>http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/aug2005/nhgri-31.htm</ref> The differences can be classified in terms of differences in local single nucleotide substitutions, insertions, deletions and repetitions of sequences. A relatively large number of difference between the chimpanzee and human genomes are not due to substitutions.<ref>http://207.210.67.162/~striz/docs/chimpc.pdf</ref> When this is taken into account, humans and chimpanzees still share 96% of their sequence, and are genetically closer than rats and mice.<ref>http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/aug2005/nhgri-31.htm</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Molecular Biology]]
[[Category:Medicine]]

Syphilis

2007-05-15T20:29:22Z

Tims: New page: Syphilis is an easily spread infection caused by the bacteria Treponema pallidum. ==Causes, incidence, and risk factors== Syphilis is an infectious disease. The bacteria that causes it ...

Syphilis is an easily spread infection caused by the bacteria Treponema pallidum.

==Causes, incidence, and risk factors==

Syphilis is an infectious disease. The bacteria that causes it spreads through broken skin or mucous membranes. It is most often spread by sexual contact.

Pregnant mothers infected with the disease can pass it to the baby developing in their womb. This is called congenital syphilis.

Syphilis is widespread in the United States. It mainly involves sexually active adults between ages 20 to 29.

Syphilis has several stages.

Primary syphilis is the first stage. Painless sores ( chancres ) form about 2-3 weeks after you are first infected. You may not notice the sores or any symptoms, particularly if the sores are inside the rectum or cervix. The sores disappear in about 4-6 weeks.

Secondary syphilis occurs about 2-8 weeks after the first sores form. About 33% of those who do not have primary syphilis treated will develop this second stage.

Tertiary syphilis is the final stage of syphilis. The infection spreads to the brain, nervous system, heart, skin, and bones.

==Symptoms==

The symptoms of syphilis depend on the stage of the disease. Many people do not have symptoms.

In general, painless sores and swollen lymph nodes are symptoms of primary syphilis. Those with secondary syphilis may also have fever, fatigue, aches and pains, and loss of appetite, among other symptoms. Tertiary syphilis causes heart, brain, and nervous system problems.

==Signs and tests==

Blood tests can be done to detect substances produced by the bacteria that causes syphilis. The older test is the VDRL test. Other blood tests may include RPR and FTA-ABS.

==Treatment==

Antibiotics are used to treat syphilis. The antibiotic of choice is penicillin, yet doxycycline may be used as an alternative in individuals with a penicillin allergy.

The penicillin is either injected into a muscle or vein, depending on what stage syphilis the person has.

Several hours after treatment of early stages of syphilis, there may be a reaction called Jarish-Herxheimer reaction. Symptoms of this reaction include:

:*Fever
:*Chills
:*Headache
:*Nausea
:*General feeling of being ill
:*General joint aches
:*Genera muscle aches

These symptoms usually disappear within 24 hours.

A person undergoing Syphilis treatment must have follow-up blood tests at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months to make sure the infection is gone. They should avoid sexual conduct until two follow-up tests show that the infection has been cured. Syphilis is extremely contagious in the primary and secondary stages.

Syphilis is a reportable infection -- that means that doctors must reported any cases of syphilis to public health authorities, so that potentially infected sexual partners may be identified and treated.

==Expectations (prognosis)==

With prompt treatment and follow-up care, syphilis can be cured.

Late-stage syphilis can lead to long-term health problems, despite therapy.

==Complications==

Complications of untreated syphilis include:

Neurosyphilis
Heart and blood vessel problems, including aneurysms and inflammation of the aorta
Damage to the skin and bones

Rickets

2007-05-15T20:22:25Z

Tims: New page: Rickets is a disorder primarily caused by lack of vitamin D, calcium, or phosphate, which leads to softening and weakening of the bones. ==Causes, incidence, and risk factors== Vitamin D...

Rickets is a disorder primarily caused by lack of vitamin D, calcium, or phosphate, which leads to softening and weakening of the bones.

==Causes, incidence, and risk factors==

Vitamin D helps the body properly control calcium and phosphate levels in the body. When the body is deficient in vitamin D, it is unable to properly control calcium and phosphate levels. If the blood levels of these minerals become too low, the body may produce other body hormones to stimulate release of calcium and phosphate from the bones. This leads to weak and soft bones.

Vitamin D may be absorbed from food or may be produced by the skin when the skin is exposed to sunlight. Lack of vitamin D production by the skin may occur in people who must stay indoors, work indoors during the daylight hours, or live in climates with little exposure to sunlight.

Because vitamin D is a fat-soluble vitamin, malabsorption disorders that reduce digestion or absorption of fats will decrease the ability of vitamin D to be absorbed into the body.

Not getting enough calcium and phosphorous in your diet can also lead to rickets. Rickets caused by a dietary lack of these minerals is rare in developed countries because calcium and phosphorous are found in milk and green vegetables.

Genetics may increase the risk of rickets. Hereditary rickets is form of the disease that is passed down through families. It occurs when the kidneys are unable to retain the mineral phosphate. Rickets may also be caused by kidney disorders that involve renal tubular acidosis.

Rickets is rare in the United States. It is most likely to occur during periods of rapid growth, when the body demands high levels of calcium and phosphate. Rickets may be seen in young children 6 to 24 months old and is uncommon in newborns.

==Symptoms==

Bone pain or tenderness
Arms
Legs
Spine
Pelvis
Skeletal deformities
Bowlegs
Forward projection of the breastbone (pigeon chest)
Bumps in the rib cage (rachitic rosary)
Asymmetrical or odd-shaped skull
Spine deformities (spine curves abnormally, including scoliosis or kyphosis)
Pelvic deformities
Increased tendency toward bone fractures
Dental deformities
Delayed formation of teeth
Defects in the structure of teeth, holes in the enamel
Increased incidence of cavities in the teeth (dental caries)
Progressive weakness
Decreased muscle tone (loss of muscle strength)
Muscle cramps
Impaired growth
Short stature (adults less than 5 feet tall)

==Signs and tests==

A physical exam reveals tenderness or pain in the bones, rather than in the joints or muscles.

The following tests may help diagnose rickets:

:*Blood tests (serum calcium) may show low levels of calcium.
:*Tetany (prolonged muscle spasm) may occur if serum levels of calcium are low.
:*Chvostek's sign may be positive (a spasm of facial muscles occurs when the facial nerve is tapped) indicating low serum levels of calcium.
:*Serum phosphorus may be low.
:*Serum alkaline phosphatase may be high.
:*Arterial blood gases may reveal metabolic acidosis.
:*Bone x-rays may show loss of calcium from bones or changes in the shape or structure of the bones.
:*A bone biopsy is rarely performed but will confirm rickets.

Other tests and procedures include the following:
:*PTH
:*Urine calcium
:*Calcium (ionized)
:*ALP (alkaline phosphatase) isoenzyme

==Treatment==

The treatment goals are to relieve symptoms and correct the cause of the condition. The underlying cause must be treated to prevent recurrence.

The replacement of deficient calcium, phosphorus, or vitamin D will eliminate most symptoms of rickets. Dietary sources of vitamin D include fish, liver, and processed milk. Exposure to moderate amounts of sunlight is encouraged. Treating rickets caused by metabolic abnormalities may require a special prescription for vitamin D.

Positioning or bracing may be used to reduce or prevent deformities. Some skeletal deformities may require corrective surgery.

==Expectations (prognosis)==

The disorder may be corrected with replacement of deficient minerals and vitamin D. Laboratory values and x-rays usually improve after about 1 week, although some cases may be resistant and require large doses of minerals and vitamin D.

If rickets is not corrected while children are still growing, skeletal deformities and short stature may be permanent. If it is corrected while the child is young, skeletal deformities often diminish or disappear with time.

==Complications==

Chronic skeletal pain
Skeletal deformities
Skeletal fractures, may occur without cause
Calling your health care provider

==Prevention==

Rickets may be avoided by maintaining an adequate intake of calcium, phosphorus, and vitamin D.
Renal (kidney) causes of vitamin D malabsorption should be treated promptly. Levels of calcium and phosphorus should be monitored regularly in people who have renal disorders.
Genetic counseling may help people with a family history of inherited disorders that can cause rickets.

History of science

2007-05-15T20:16:12Z

Tims:

The '''history of science''' goes back into the dim and musty reaches of antiquity, when philosophers first began to speculate about what causes things to move and grow. At first, it was hardly distinguishable from [[mythology]] or superstition.

By a process of regular observation and classification, ancient Greek philosophers tried to make sense of the natural world.

*It all began with [[Socrates]], a [[philosopher]], a lover of wisdom, who tried to elicit the truth by what has become known as the [[Socratic method]], in which by a series of probing questions he forced successive further clarification of thought. [http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/aristot2.html]

*Though [[Aristotle]]'s work in [[zoology]] was not without errors, it was the grandest biological synthesis of the time, and remained the ultimate authority for many centuries after his death. His observations on the anatomy of [[octopus]], [[cuttlefish]], crustaceans, and many other marine invertebrates are remarkably accurate, and could only have been made from first-hand experience with dissection. Aristotle described the embryological development of a [[chick]]; he distinguished [[whale]]s and [[dolphin]]s from [[fish]]; he described the chambered [[stomach]]s of [[ruminant]]s and the social organization of [[bee]]s; he noticed that some [[shark]]s give birth to live young -- his books on animals are filled with such observations, some of which were not confirmed until many centuries later. [http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/aristotle.html]

*Aristotle's approach to science differed from Plato's. He agreed that the highest human faculty was reason, and its supreme activity was contemplation. However, in addition to studying what he called "first philosophy" - metaphysics and mathematics, the things Plato had worked on, Aristotle thought it also very important to study "second philosophy": the world around us, from physics and mechanics to biology. Perhaps being raised in the house of a physician had given him an interest in living things. [http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/aristot2.html]

Theories based on observation were not always subject to [[experiment]]al test, and some errors lingered on for centuries. The best known was Aristotle's theory of [[falling objects]], which despite its went essentially unchallenged until the [[Renaissance]].

==External links==
*[http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/aristotle.html Aristotle (384-322 B.C.E.)] - University of California Museum of Paleontology

Talk:Starlight problem

2007-05-15T19:26:53Z

Tims: /* Argument with no description */

Removed "facts" which were not facts. I will not hesitate to block offenders of the conservapedia commandments. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

So, you take away the entire description of the problem, all mention of commonly held conceptions of the speed of light, and replace the entire article with YEC prpaganda. Now thats fair and balanced. Send your resume to Faux News quick, you have a brilliant career ahead of you. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 21:09, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

He means it! I got blocked for a week for saying light from the Andromeda Galaxy had been traveling for three million years. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 20:25, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I'd still like to know how he's going to debunk the parallax measurement technique, which is just highschool geometry, the only variable is the distance between the Earth and the Sun, which is pretty well known, we've even sent space probes to the Sun...
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

How come removing information because it doesn't jive with conservative's idea of "facts" is ok, but what is in the article at this moment isn't factual either? Laughable.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 20:39, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== My applogies, but thats funny ==

The Earth is only 6k years old, but the rest of the universe is billions of years old because of time dilation. Wouldn't it just be easier to make the Earth a few billion years old too, without invoking divine intervention? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:30, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
: I meant what I wrote. Please don't change my comments. The first sentence is a restatement of the current article statement. The second sentence is Occam's Razor. I am by no means a YEC. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:33, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I don't like the dilation idea either. I prefer setterfield's explanation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:34, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, the speed of light would have to have been A LOOOOT faster to make up for what we see today, did Setterfield ever consider that since <math>E^2 = p^2 c^2 +m^2 c^4</math> : mass, impuls and energy of everything in the Universe would also change A LOOOOT, you'd need A LOOOOT of divine intervention to keep everything in place!

At least with the time dilation theory only our Solar System and its surrounding would have needed divine intervention.
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

== Argument with no description ==

Currently, there is no description of what the starlight problem is. This has been removed. All that remains is the YEC viewpoint as some time dilation saying that this isn't a problem. If there is to be an article here (and there should - it is likely to get linked to fairly often) there should be a reasonable description of what the starlight problem is and why it is brought up so often. --14:43, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

This has been fixed. Without a statement of what the starlight problem is then there would be no reason for this page. Since Andy also stated that conservapedia is not specificaly YEC POV then we can have this claim as long as it has actual evidence and the sources are well cited.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 15:26, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Starlight problem

2007-05-15T19:24:49Z

Tims: Since Conservapedia is not specificly YEC POV.

The Starlight Problem is an argument in favour of a universe with a long history - many billions of years - as opposed to the six thousand year age many creationists interpert based on the Genesis narative.

Given that the speed of light cannot possibly be exceeded - a conclusion of general relativity, and to which no exceptions have yet been found - the most distant visible objects cannot be further away than the distance light could travel since the universe was created. Thus, the distance to the furthest visible object can be used to establish a lower limit on the age of the universe.

Using parallax calculations, the milky way galaxy alone can be directly observed to have a diameter of approximately 80-100,000 light years. Calculations based on the observed brightness of supernovas of known energy output can determine the distance to more distant objects. The most distant object known is a star cluster approximately thirteen billion light-years distant, observed by the Hubble telescope using gravitational lensing<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3490657.stm</ref>.

Several solutions have been proposed by creationists to explain how a young universe may be reconciled with these observations. Some of these may be viewed on
[[Debate:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?]]

== Young Earth Creationist View Regarding Starlight ==
In regards to the question of how one can see [[star|starlight]] from millions of light years away, [[young earth]] [[creationist]]s [[scientist]]s commonly mention several things. First, these scientists assert that the [[Big Bang Theory]] has a star light-travel time problem and cite the work of Dr. [[Charles W. Misner]]. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/lighttravel.asp</ref> Secondly, creationist [[Barry Setterfield]] has proposed that the speed of light was faster in the past. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0809_cdk_davies.asp</ref> Thirdly, the work of young earth creationist scientist Dr. [[John Hartnett]] proposes an alternative, creationist view, by theorizing the Earth was trapped in a time-dilation field caused by extremely strong gravitation during the first few days of creation, from Earth's point of view, while billions of years passed for the rest of the universe.
He attributes the field, it's removal and the continued balance in our solar system (after the field was removed) to divine intervention. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i2/cosmology.asp</ref>
==References==
<references/>

Talk:Race

2007-05-15T19:23:20Z

Tims: /* Was this lifted from a nineteenth century textbook? */

== Since the Great Flood ==

In my opinion, this part should at least be introduced as "According to Creationists" or "For those who believe in...".[[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 16:53, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

::Its a [[Conservapedia:Differences with Wikipedia|conservative fact]], see [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Commandments&diff=41919&oldid=40811%20talk:Commandments here]. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 12:25, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

You mean conservatives ''wish''it were a fact. Which is not the same thing as it being a ''fact''--[[User:27102340|27102340]] 12:39, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

: I just got blocked by CPAdmin, I guess for removing it (nobody gave me a reason), but then when Speaker made the same edit, it's remained. I don't really understand this place. [[User:Brainslug|Brainslug]] 15:00, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==Neanderthal==
They seem to have forgotten the Neanderthal. As it is currently listed as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis on this website it should be listed as one of the races.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:25, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:Only if it says so in the Bible. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 11:48, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==Was this lifted from a nineteenth century textbook?==
Good Freaking God. Newsflash: Asians are not "yellow." Native Americans are not "Red." Stupidpedia strikes again!--[[User:27102340|27102340]] 12:31, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:If this article is going to mention what science once thought about races, then at least get it right. The original physical anthropologists that developed the biological race model had only three races: Caucasians, Mongloids, and Negroids.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 12:35, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Whaaa...you mean the scientists, to whom we all genuflect before as barers and guardians of truth and knowledge, have been ''wrong''? Wow. And those scientific facts were once used to promote and justify racism and genocide? My word. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:06, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Oh my God!!Scientists actually make mistakes like every other person on this planet, and if they are proven wrong they actually change their theories?? Wait...Wait...Oh that's right...science is an open system as opposed to a closed system. Duh...[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 13:11, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:At least we are out of the dark ages, where persecution and genocide was done in the name of Christianity and the Church. Thank heaven. Now we at least have atheists, rationalists, and science to blame for our progressive thinking which results in mass murder. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:14, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Yah...good thing those white Christian upper-class gentlemen in the 19th century needing some way of justifying racist policies could turn to science to do their dirty work.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 13:16, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, isn't science a Bitc*? I mean, instead of living in your cave, following the sheep around, now you have central heat, air, the internet, the internal combustion engine. Dang, science make these Christians so miserable.--[[User:27102340|27102340]] 13:24, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:Yep. It was science that gave <s>mankind</s> personkind Zyklon B, and the instructions how to use it. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:11, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
::What? So science was wrong in the past. Isn't there something in the Bible about the sins of the fathers? How is that relevant to science today? Part of science's ''strength'' is that it changes with new discoveries...-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 14:15, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
And it was non-scientific politicans that decided to use it. Same as the atom bomb, dynamite, and napalm. So would you also blame the company that makes the gun used to kill someone, or the person that pulled the trigger?[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 14:13, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:Good point.-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 14:15, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

My point is that you really sound ignorant villifying science like that. Last time I checked there weren't a whole helluva lot of people with polio or smallpox around anymore. If one day your appendix blows science has made it possible for you to still survive without being bled by leeches. How many peopl are saved by organ transplants every year? Science did that for you. Science in and of itself doesn't kill.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 14:22, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:Right. Science create napalm, VX gas, Sarin gas, etc., and it's "progress"; then when poltical leaders try to stop the spread of '''this brilliant knowledge''', where are they to be found? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:28, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Hmm... Union of Concerned Scienists that are against nuclear weapons, International Network of Engineers and Scientists Against Proliferation, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, and alot of other scientists that are against such things. [[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 14:44, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:Oh really? Where did these groups stand vis a vis allowing Mr. Saddam Hussein to retain classrooms with students obtaining this knowledge, (i.e. Saddams WMD programs). [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:57, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

A) There wasn't much they could do about Saddam.

B) The poison gas? You don't exactly have to be a Nobel-Prize winner to make that stuff.

C) Clear example of the powers that be, abusing science and scientists for their own evil purposes.
Every new invention will sooner or later be turned into a weapon by <s>ignorant laymen</s> politicians, scientists regret this, but feel it is no reason to stop progress.
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

:You know the list that RobS gave us all have political ties and backing. So is it the scientists or the politicians?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 15:23, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Jerry Falwell

2007-05-15T17:39:40Z

Tims:

This page needs improvement to do justice to Rev. Falwell.

I rolled back the liberal gossip about Falwell and Rev. Moon. It's nothing more than a smear effort of the sort we don't allow under our [[rules]]. Falwell is not an adherent of Rev. Moon's church and Falwell is entitled to do business just like everyone else. The smear was unsupported by a credible resource.

Be fair to Christians and everyone else here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:16, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:Also I'm not sure that rotten.com is a "reliable" source.[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 22:18, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

: My addition to this article is based on fact, not opinion. Critics do indeed attack Falwell's connection the Unification Church. This is not an attack or "smear" on Christians in general but a verifiable fact about the controversy surrounding a public figure. Opposing viewpoints supported by citations are welcome, but this is tantamount to censorhip. Rotten has an admitted liberal bias but all their info in this instance is credible and independently verifiable.

--[[User:Hektor|Hektor]] 22:22, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm going to edit this article over the next couple days. Falwell has been a tremendous educator, and his efforts deserve more than this. Stay tuned! --[[User:Thammersmith|Thammersmith]] 21:12, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:I'm not sure why my changes were reverted. Jerry Falwell has ties to Republican causes and the Moral Majority is a part of the Religious Right, not the Religious right. For instance the Christian Coalition is part of the Religious Right as well. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:58, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

==Just passed away==
CCN just reported his death today.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 13:39, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

History of microbiology

2007-05-15T15:50:38Z

Tims: /* Timeline of Microbiology Discoveries */

Microbiology is the scientific study of microorganisms, a diverse group of simple life-forms including [[protozoa]]ns, [[algae]], [[fungi]], [[bacteria]], and [[virus]]es.

Microbiology is concerned with the structure, function, and classification of these organisms and with ways of controlling and using their activities. Its foundations were established in the later 19th century, with the work of Louis Pasteur and Robert Koch. Since then, many disease-causing microorganisms have been identified and means of controlling their harmful effects have been developed. In addition, means of channeling the activities of various microorganisms to benefit medicine, industry, and agriculture have been discovered. Molds, for example, produce [[antibiotic]]s, notably [[penicillin]]. See also [[bacteriology]], [[genetic engineering]].

==Timeline of Microbiology Discoveries==
The chief discoveries of microbiology took place in a period starting in the 1500s.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Date
! Event

|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1546
| Italian physician Girolamo Fracastoro suggests that invisible organisms may cause disease.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1665
| Robert Hooke publishes his discovery of cells in cork.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1676
| Antony van Leeuwenhoek observes bacteria and protozoa using his homemade microscope.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1717
| Mary Wortley Montagu introduced the smallpox vaccination to England from Turkey.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1767
| Lazzaro Spallanzani helped dispute the theory of spontaneous generation.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1796
| Edward Jenner introduces a vaccination procedure for smallpox.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1838-1839
| Mathias Schleiden and Theodor Schwann independently propose that all organisms are composed of cells, the basic unit of life.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1840
| J. Henle presents a clear exposition of the germ theory of disease.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1847-1850
| Ignaz Semelweis demonstrates that puerperal or childbed fever is a contagious disease transmitted by physicians to their patients during childbirth.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1853
| Heinrich Anton deBary noted that plant disease is caused by bacteria.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1853-1854
| John Snow demonstrates the epidemic spread of cholera through a water supply contaminated with human sewage.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1857
| Louis Pasteurdemonstrates that yeast can degrade sugar to ethanol and carbon dioxide and multiply in the process.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1861
| Louis Pasteur publishes experiments that refute the theory of spontaneous generation.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1864
| Louis Pasteur develops pasteurization as a method to destroy unwanted organisms in wine.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1866
| Gregor Mendel published results of experiments on the laws of inheritance, thus establishing the science of genetics.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1867
| Joseph Lister publishes the first work on antiseptic surgery, beginning the trend toward modern aseptic techniques in medicine.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1875
| Ferdinand J. Cohn published an early classification of bacteria and first used the genus name Bacillus.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1876
| Robert Koch demonstrates that anthrax is caused by a bacterium.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1877
| Ferdinand J. Cohn discovered the bacterial spore and related its resistance to sterilization processes.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1881
| Robert Koch introduces the use of pure culture techniques for handling bacteria in the laboratory.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1881
| Walther and Fanny Hesseintroduce agar-agar as a solidifying gel for culture media.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1882
| Koch identifies the causative agent of tuberculosis.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1884
| Koch states [[Koch's postulate]]s for determining the cause of a disease.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1884
| Elie Metchnikoff discovers phagocytic cells and thus begins the study of immunology.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1884
| Christian Gram publishes a paper describing the Gram stain.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1884
| Shibasaburo Kitasatodiscovered Clostridium tetani, the causative agent of tetanus.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1884
| Thomas J. Burrillpioneered the field of plant pathology. Discovers "fire blight"of fruit trees is caused by a bacterium.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1884
| Erwin F. Smith , another pioneer plant pathologist, discovers "peach yellows" is caused by a virus.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1885
| Theodor Escherich identified Escherichia coli as a natural inhabitant of the human gut.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1885
| Louis Pasteur published his work on immunization against rabies.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1887
| Julius Petri adapts two plates to form a container for holding media and culturing microbes - the Petri dish.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1887
| David Bruce identified Brucella melitensis as causative agent of brucellosis in cattle.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1888
| Martinus Beijerinck obtained a pure culture of root nodule bacterium Rhizobium and studied the process of nitrogen fixation.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1890
| Emil von Behring developed a diphtheria antitoxin.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1890
| Paul Ehrlich proposed a theory of immunity in which antibodies are responsible for immunity.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1890
| Sergei Winogradsky studied nitrifying bacteria, advanced the idea of autotrophic metabolism.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1892
| Weisman demonstrated important role of nucleus in heredity (1892).
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1897
| Paul Ehrlichformulated sidechain theory of antibody formation.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1901
| Emil von Behring received Nobel Prize for the development of serum treatment, especially for diphtheria.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1902
| Sir Ronald Ross recieves the Nobel Prize for the discovery of the life cycle of malaria parasite in humans and mosquitoes.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1905
| Robert Koch receives Nobel Prize for founding scientific bacteriology and proving the cause of tuberculosis.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1907
| Charles Louis received Nobel Prize for showing protozoa are the cause of some infectious diseases.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1908
| Paul Ehrlich develops the drug Salvarsan to treat syphilis, thereby starting the use of chemotherapy to treat diseases. Receives Nobel Prize.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1911
| F. Peyton Rous discovers that a virus can cause cancer in chickens.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1912
| Paul Ehrlich synthesized a "magic bullet" for syphilis.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1928
| Frederick Griffith discovers genetic transformation in bacteria, thereby raising a key question in genetics: What chemical caused the transformation.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1929
| Alexander Fleming discovers and describes the properties of the first antibiotic, penicillin.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1930
| Karl Landsteiner receives the Nobel Prize for the discovery of the ABO human blood groups.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1931
| Cornelius Van Niel pioneered work on the biochemistry of photosynthesis in sulfur bacteria.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1935
| Gerhardt Komagk discovered sulfur drug for chemotherapy. Receives the Nobel Prize in 1939.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1941
| Selman Waksman described production of the antibiotic actinomycin, streptothricin, cycloserines and novobiocin by actinomycetes. Receives Nobel Prize in 1952.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1941
| George Beadleand Edward Tatum produce evidence of genetic mutants, opening the field of molecular genetics.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1944
| Oswald Avery , Colin MacLeod, and Maclyn McCarty demonstrate that Griffith's transforming principle is DNA.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1944
| Joshua Lederbergand Edward Tatum demonstrate that DNA can be transferred from one bacterium to another. Recieved Nobel Prize in 1958 with George Beadle.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1945
| Alexander Fleming, Sir E. B. Chain and Lord H.W. Florey receive the Nobel Prize for disscovering penicillin, the first antibiotic.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1948
| Barbara McClintock demonstrates transposable elements in maize, and almost two decades later they are discovered in bacteria.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1950
| Elizabeth Hazen and Rachel Brown discovered antifungal nystatin.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1951
| Max Theiler receives the Nobel Prize for developing a vaccine for yellow fever.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1953
| James Watson , Francis Crick, Rosalind Franklin and Maurice Wilkins determine the structure of DNA. Receive Nobel Prize in 1962.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1954
| Jonas Salk developed the first polio vaccine.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1954
| John F. Enders, T.H. Weller and F.C. Robbins receive the Nobel Prize for growing poliovirus in cell cultures, making the polio vaccine possible.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1955
| Polio vaccine approved by the U.S. government.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1957
| D. Carlton Gajdusek demonstrates the slow infectious nature of the disease kuru, which is later shown to be caused by a prion.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1969
| Max Delbruck, Alfred Hershey and Salvadore E. Luria receive Nobel Prize for describing the mechanism of viral infection of bacterial cells.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1977
| Carl Woese classifies all life into three domains.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1980
| A rare cancer in humans is shown to be caused by a retrovirus.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1980
| The World Health Organization declares eradication of smallpox in the world.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1987
| Susumu Tonegawa recieves Nobel Prize for work on the genetics of antibody diversity.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1995
| The first complete nucleotide sequence of a bacterial chromosome is reported (Haemophilus influenzae).
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1997
| Stanley B. Prusiner receives Nobel Prize for the discovery and characterization of prions.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1998
| An autoimmune disease (chronic arthritis) is linked to bacterial infection.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 2000
| The first new antibiotic in 35 years, Zyvox, is approved by the Food and Drug Administration.
|}

==See Also==
:*
==References==
<references/>

[[category:biology]]

Molecular biology

2007-05-15T15:50:31Z

Tims: /* Timeline of Molecular Biology Discoveries */

'''Molecular biology''' is the scientific study of the molecular basis of life processes, including cellular respiration, excretion, and reproduction. This branch of biology deals with the nature of biological phenomena at the molecular level through the study of [[DNA]] and [[RNA]], [[protein]]s, and other [[macromolecule]]s involved in genetic information and cell function, characteristically making use of advanced tools and techniques of separation, manipulation, imaging, and analysis. 

The term molecular biology was coined in 1938 by Warren Weaver, then director of the natural sciences program at the Rockefeller Foundation. In 1950 W. T. Astbury of the Univ. of Leeds used the term in its now accepted sense, to describe the area of research, closely related to and often overlapping [[biochemistry]], conducted by biologists whose approach to and interest in biology are principally at the molecular level of organization. The field of molecular biology has grown with the increasing sophistication of available techniques and has quickly built upon its own increases in the understanding of biological processes. In the 1930s, with the help of the technique of [[ultracentrifugation]], the [[macromolecule]]s were first studied in detail and their crystalline properties described. In the 1940s the process by which individual [[gene]]s produce their unique products began to be understood as resulting from the different sequences of the [[base pair]]s that make up the [[gene]]s.

In the 1950s [[Linus Pauling]] described the three-dimensional structure of [[protein]]s, and James Watson and Francis Crick described the [[double helix]] of the [[DNA]] molecule. Further advances were made in understanding [[DNA]], [[protein]], and [[virus]] synthesis and the regulation of [[gene]]s, and by the 1970s, the techniques of [[genetic engineering]] were enabling molecular biologists to study higher plants and animals, opening up the possibility of manipulating plant and animal [[gene]]s to achieve greater agricultural productivity. Such techniques also opened the way for the development of [[gene therapy]].

==Timeline of Molecular Biology Discoveries==
The chief discoveries of molecular biology took place in a period of only about twenty-five years.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Date
! Event

|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1940
| George Beadle and Edward Tatum demonstrated the existence of a precise relationship between genes and proteins. In the course of their experiments connecting genetics with biochemistry, they switched from the genetics mainstay Drosophila to a more appropriate model organism, the fungus Neurospora; the construction and exploitation of new model organisms would become a recurring theme in the development of molecular biology.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1944
| Oswald Avery, working at the Rockefeller Institute of New York, demonstrated that genes are made up of DNA.

|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1952
| Alfred Hershey and Martha Chase confirmed that the genetic material of the bacteriophage, the virus which infects bacteria, is made up of DNA.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1953
| James Watson and Francis Crick discovered the double helical structure of the DNA molecule.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1960
| Rene Dubos works on antimicrobial agents and environmental protection F. M. Burnet and Peter B. Medawar receive Nobel Prize for the discovery of acquired immunological tolerance.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1960
| "Ames Test" to screen for mutagens developed by Bruce Ames.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1961
| Francois Jacob and Jacques Monod hypothesized the existence of an intermediary between DNA and its protein products, which they called messenger RNA.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1961-1965
| The relationship between the information contained in DNA and the structure of proteins was determined: there is a genetic code, which creates a correspondence between the succession of nucleotides in the DNA sequence and a series of amino acids in proteins. Monod and Jacob also demonstrated how certain specific proteins, called regulative proteins, latch onto DNA at the edges of the genes and control the transcription of these genes into messenger RNA; they direct the "expression" of the genes.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1973
| Herbert Boyer and Stanley Cohen, using plasmids, are the first to clone DNA.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1976
| Michael Bishop and Harold Varmus discover the cancer-causing genes, called oncogenes, and find that such genes are in normal tissues.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1978
| Daniel Nathans, H.O. Smith and Werner Arber receive Nobel Prize for using restriction enzymes to map viral genomes.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1982
| Stanley Prusiner isolates a protein from a slow disease infection and suggests that it might direct its own replication. He suggests the agent be termed a prion.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1983
| Luc Montagnier of France and Robert Gallo of the United States independently isolate and characterize the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) the cause of AIDS.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1983
| Kary Mullis invents the polymerase chain reaction.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1983
| Barbara McClintock receives the Nobel Prize for discovery of mobile genetic elements.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1994
| The Food and Drug Administration approves the first genetically engineered food for human consumption, a slower ripening tomato.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1995
| The Food and Drug Administration approves the first protease inhibitor, a major weapon against the progression of AIDS.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1996
| Peter C. Doherty and Rolf M. Zindernagel receives Nobel Prize for the discovery of how the immune system recognizes virus-infected cells.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1997
| The first complete nucleotide sequence of all of the chromosomes of eukaryote is reported (yeast).
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1999
| Forrest Doolittle proposes that evolution proceeded through horizontal gene between the three domains.
|}

==See Also==
:*A. Darbre, Introduction to Practical Molecular Biology (1988).

==References==
<references/>

[[category:biology]]

Biochemistry

2007-05-15T15:50:28Z

Tims: /* Timeline of Biochemistry Discoveries */

Biochemistry, is the scientific study concerned chiefly with the chemistry of biological processes; it attempts to utilize the tools and concepts of [[chemistry]], particularly [[organic]] and [[physical chemistry]], for elucidation of the living system. The science has been variously referred to as [[physiological chemistry]] and as [[biological chemistry]].

==Scope of the Biochemist==
[[Biochemist]]s study such things as the structures and physical properties of biological [[molecule]]s, including the [[protein]]s, the [[carbohydrate]]s, the [[lipid]]s, and the [[nucleic acid]]s; the mechanisms of [[enzyme]] action; the chemical regulation of [[metabolism]]; the molecular basis of [[genetic expression]]; the chemistry of [[vitamins]]; [[chemoluminescence]]; biological [[oxidation]]; and energy utilization in the [[cell]]. The study of the [[chemistry]] of the [[immune response]] offers the possibility of treatment and cure for such diseases as [[AIDS]] and [[lupus]].

==Biochemistry and other sciences==
[[Molecular biology]], a term first used in 1950, is used to describe the area of research, closely related to and often overlapping biochemistry, conducted by biologists whose approach to and interest in [[biology]] are principally at the molecular level of organization. The related field of [[biophysics]] brings to [[biology]] the techniques and attitudes of the [[physicist]]. [[Cell biology]] is concerned with the organization and functioning of the individual [[cell]] and depends greatly on biochemical techniques. As the study of life forms demonstrated similar or even identical processes occurring in widely divergent [[species]], it has taken the [[biochemist]] to unravel the underlying chemical basis for these phenomena.

==Timeline of Biochemistry Discoveries==
The chief discoveries of Biochemistry started taking place in the early 1800's.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Date
! Event

|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1828
| Friedrich Wöhler published a paper about the synthesis of urea, proving that organic compounds can be created artificially.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1833
| Anselme Payen made the discovery of the first enzyme, diastase (today called amylase).
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1896
| Eduard Buchner contributed the first demonstration of a complex biochemical process outside of a cell: alcoholic fermentation in cell extracts of yeast.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1953
| James Watson and Francis Crick discovered the double helical structure of the DNA molecule.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1953
| Hans Adolf Krebs discovers the biochemical steps of the Krebs cycle in carbohydrate metabolism.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1957
| Daniel Bovet receives the Nobel Prize for the development of antihistamines.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1959
| Severo Ochoa and Arthur Kornberg receive Nobel Prize for discoveries on the synthesis ofDNA and RNA.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1970
| Hamilton Smith reports the discovery of the first restriction enzyme.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1971
| Theodor Diener demonstrates the fundamental differences between viroids and viruses.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1975
| Cesar Milsein, Georges Kohler, and Niels Kai Jerne develop the technique for making monoclonal antibodies.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1977
| Rosalyn S. Yalow, R.C.I. Guillemin and A.V. Schally receive the Nobel Prize for developing the radioimmunossay (RIA) techniques; and using RIA to analyze peptide hormones in the brain.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1984
| Cesar Milstein, Georges J.F. Koehler and Niels Jerne receive the Nobel Prize for developing a method for the production of large quantities of monoclonal antibodies.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1995
| The Food and Drug Administration approves the first protease inhibitor, a major weapon against the progression of AIDS.
|- valign="TOP"
| align="RIGHT" nowrap | 1997
| The first complete nucleotide sequence of all of the chromosomes of eukaryote is reported (yeast).
|}

==See Also==
:*L. Stryer, Biochemistry (3d ed. 1988); C. K. Mathews and K. E. van Holde, Biochemistry (1990); G. Zubay, Biochemistry (3d ed. 1993).

==References==
<reference/>

Talk:Neanderthal

2007-05-15T15:47:23Z

Tims: /* Logic */

''Thought by evolutionists to represent some sort of "caveman". In fact, fits well within the normal height-weight ratios of modern humans''

How does the fact that they were physically similar to modern humans in some characteristics preclude them from having lived in caves? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 07:47, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:You need to consider the connotation of ''caveman'', not just its denotation.
:*denotation: a human being who lives in a cave : cave-dweller
:*connotation: a primitive (practical subhuman) creature having the appearance of ''homo sapiens'' and yet not really a person

:This is rough, of course, or I'd simply add it to the article. Do you get my drift? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:50, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

So why use the term "caveman" in the article? In what way does the height/weight ratio of the neanderthals have a bearing on whether they were modern humans or not? Can you link to some evolutionist researh in which neanderthals are described as subhuman? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 08:10, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:No, I can't. I don't know enough about [[human origins]] to do that. You sound like you know more about this than I do. May I offer you some writing tasks to volunteer for? ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:58, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Good job on this, too bad it isn't going to last long.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 14:29, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

==Don't mess with this article!==

I wrote 90% of this article and it now falls under my protection:

* I will only allow additions with credible references:

: Good: accredited news agencies, science journals, university websites and research papers

: Bad: blogs, 100 year old books, AiG, CMI,...

* I will not allow creationist material in this article: this one's for science, if you're a YEC, go to a debate page or go vandalize the [[Dinosaur]] article

[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

:95%? Give me a bit more credit thatn that, it took me a while to get this article properly started. Your work on the article is superb, but I claim th eright to assist with this project. Your work is excellent though, in transforming my text to a full article and I wonder if you would be interested in doing the same for [[Homo]] [[User:stevendavy|stevendavy]]

Is 90% ok?
But, yeah, of course you can edit, anyone can edit this, as long as it's properly sourced.

[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]
:: 90%, Ah, go on then, but I am only letting you off on account of the funky photos. [[User:stevendavy|stevendavy]]

Here goes your article. I hope you have the strength and power to defend your version. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 10:20, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:What's this about it being under ''your'' protection? All articles on Conservapedia are subject to being edited by others. And what's wrong with AiG and CMI as sources? Just because they have a different worldview to you is no reason to malign them.
:And what's with the (offensive) distinction between "science" and "creationist material"? Since when does the atheistic worldview have a monopoly on science?
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:28, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::I think his claim of "Under his protection" is based on user:conservative's protecting the articles that he writes, the majority of, without allowing other editors, non sysops, to make changes.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:32, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:::TimS has it right, I guess. And definitely not "All articles" are open to being edited.
:::P.S. Fortunately, science is not monopolized by a religious or areligious group/worldview. Many scientists are Christians. But they do science, not religion. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 10:37, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Some articles (too many) are locked to prevent vandalism or liberal edits, but none are limited to a single author (some essays excepted).
::::[[physical science|Origins science]] does tend to be monopolised by one religion: atheism. Even many of the Christians working in science have been bluffed into thinking atheistically.
::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:52, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::Obviously not. And not. But this is not the place for that kind of discussion. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 10:56, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::Then why start it here? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:59, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Good question, only you know the answer. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 04:01, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Why did someone change the opening to this article? It was well written and factual. The reference to Mousterian tool tradition is accurate. Shouldn't the editor give some explanation as to why parts have been removed?[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 11:32, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== Society in anatomy ==

I see alot of items concerning society being included in the anatomy section. Could someone more wiki-savvy than I clear that up? [[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 10:50, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:Minor fix...all done[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 10:50, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== Copyright of images ==

What is the copyright status of the images in the article? A quick glance would suggest to me that they have simply been copied from a web-site. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:02, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

==Homo sapiens neanderthalensis is incorrect==
CPWebmaster, the Homo sapiens neanderthalensis is not the correct name for the neanderthal. It is Homo neanderthalensis. Neanderthalensis and Sapiens are different species. Please correct.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:04, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

This article really should be renamed Homo neanderthalensis. The Homo sapien neanderthalensis classification was largely based on Willian King's 1864 observations and conclusions that Neanderthals were very closely related to modern humans. Current research into Neanderthal DNA has revealed no evolutionary link between the two species, therefore many anthropologists tend to classfy Neanderthals as a seperate species. [[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 11:14, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

The Smithsonian Institution classifies neanderthal as Homo neanderthalensis http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/neand.htm.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:35, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:I wasn't going to comment because I should be in bed by now, but would an acceptable compromise be to name the article either "Neanderthal Man" or "Neandertal Man" (there's justification for both) and then explain the scientific name(s) in the body of the article? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:45, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::Perhaps but it does sidestep the scientific naming of the organism. --[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:46, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:::How does it "sidestep" it? It would still be included, and in more detail; it just wouldn't be in the title. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:03, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:::The issue is what the correct naming is. When you are using a scientific name for an organism like Homo sapiens, you list it as genius then species. The title here is incorrect, if we remove it then continue to use Homo sapiens neanderthalensis we would still be wrong. What CPWebmaster did was basically reclassify that species Neanderthal is. He has placed it on the same level as Asian, White, Black ect. If this were true then the extinction of Neanderthal would have also provided the extinction of the whites in the same areas.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:00, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: You think that Homo sapiens is a genius?
:::: Seriously, I haven't checked the references, but I think I'm correct in saying that secular scientists have at some time in the past classified Neanderthal Man as fully human (i.e. Homo sapiens Neanderthalis), also that some people still consider him that, and ''possibly'' even that some of that second group are secular scientists.
:::: So wouldn't it be better to explain all that (or whatever the precise story is) in the body of the article, and not "take sides" by choosing one of the titles for the article title?
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:23, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Homo is the genius, sapiens is the species. The way this article reads is Homo (genius) Sapiens (species), Neanderthalis (subspecies). That classification was changes upon DNA evidence and more understanding of physiological data. Look at my link to the Smithsonian's classification.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:31, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==History according to Creationists==
"Malnutrition and longer life spans could cause features similar to those seen in Neanderthal skeletons." If malnutrition was a cause of features then the features would not be passed down to their offspring. Only genetic mutation would cause this, thus speciation. Please explain this stance for as of now it A. shows that neanderthal was speciated B. that the statement is incorrect about nutrition causing the features and that they were homo sapians if they had the same nutritional avaliblity as the rest of man kind.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:46, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

The claims that Neanderthals could speak exactly as modern humans is still hotly debated by physical anthropologists. Stating this as a fact is grossly misleading. In addition, many of the cranial features of neanderthals are NOT seen in modern humans. Mainly the abscence of a chin, the extreme prognathic midface, the larger brows, and the much lower cranial vault. The occipital bones protrude alot, and sport a depression caled the suprainiac fossa for the attachment of much larger neck muscles. There also exists a retromolar gap. [[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 12:01, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I agree. CPWebmaster is pulling from the AIG website which has trouble finding empirical evidence for their claims on Neanderthal. Their mtDNA claim is refuted by what I posted below. They have not even updated to the new science evidence.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:03, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

OK, how do fossils prove the use of complex syntax in spoken language? Also the claim that Neanerthals used tools to create complex tools is kinda misleading as well. Neanderthals didn't make complex tools. Almost all Neanderthal lithics are in the form of scrapers, flakes, and retouch points. None of these are "complex" tools.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 12:30, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

===mtDNA===
In 1999, scientists successfully extracted a 345 base pair sequence of mtDNA from a second Neandertal, a 29,000 year-old fossil of a baby recently discovered in Mesmaiskaya cave in south-western Russia. (Ovchinnikov et al. 2000, Höss 2000) The results of this study were similar to the previous ones, putting the Mezmaiskaya specimen outside the range of modern human mtDNA.

In addition, the two Neandertals are fairly similar, differing from each other in 12 base pairs. The difference is greater than that usually found between pairs of modern Europeans or Asians (only 1% of whom differ in 12 or more places), but comparable to the differences between modern Africans (37% of whom differ by 12 or more).

The distance between Mezmaiskaya and a particular modern human sequence known as the reference sequence (Anderson et al. 1981) was 22, compared to 27 for the first Neandertal. (However, no figures are given for the minimum, average and maximum distances between Mezmaiskaya and modern humans; it is unclear whether Mezmaiskaya is in general closer to modern humans than Feldhofer is.)

The phylogenetic analyses of Ovchinnikov et al. show the two Neandertals grouped together, and separated from all modern humans. As with the first specimen, Mezmaiskaya also appears to be equidistant from all groups of modern humans, strengthening the conclusion that Neandertals are not closely related to modern Europeans.

Because this second individual was discovered about 2,500 km (1,500 miles) from the first, it provides very strong confirmation of the previous results.

The fact that its mtDNA was also fairly close to that of the first Neandertal makes it much less likely that Neandertals and the ancestors of modern humans were both part of an interbreeding population with a large amount of mtDNA genetic variation that has been mostly lost:

"In particular, these data reduce the likelihood that Neanderthals contained enough mtDNA sequence diversity to encompass modern human diversity" (Ovchinnikov et al. 2000)

Interestingly, the preservation of the Mezmaiskaya specimen appears to be much better than that of the Feldhofer specimen. It is so good, in fact, that there is a possibility that its entire mtDNA genome may be able to be sequenced, and there is even a possibility that some of its nuclear DNA may be retrievable.

mtDNA from a third Neandertal
In 2000, scientists announced the sequencing of a third Neandertal mtDNA specimen from a cave at Vindija, Croatia (Krings et al. 2000). When the three Neandertals are compared with modern humans, all three of them cluster together, and apart from all modern humans. This conclusion is reinforced by a study by Knight (2003). Knight excluded from the comparison sites in the mtDNA genome which are known to have mutated more than once, and which are therefore poor indicators of phylogenetic relationships. His study strongly confirmed earlier ones showing deeply divergent histories for modern human mtDNA lineages and the known Neandertal ones.

Like modern humans, Neandertals had low genetic diversity compared to apes. The diversity of the three Neandertal mtDNA sequences (3.73%) is lower than that of chimpanzees (14.82+/-5.7%) and gorillas (18.57+/-5.26%), and similar to that of modern humans worldwide (3.43+/-1.22%). If modern humans are sorted into continental groups, the diversity of the three Neandertals is similar to (within one standard deviation of) that for Africans, Asians, native Americans and Australian aboriginals, and Oceanians. Modern Europeans, who live in approximately the same region as the Neandertals, have less diversity than the Neandertals.

Still more Neandertal mtDNA
Schmitz et al. (2002) reported on a fourth Neandertal mtDNA sequence from the second Neandertal fossil found at Feldhofer, the site in Germany at which the first Neandertal fossil was found. It was closely related to the previous Neandertal mtDNA sequences.
Serre et al. (2004) were able to sequence mtDNA from four other Neandertal fossils, along with mtDNA from five early modern humans. The four Neandertals all had mtDNA similar to those found in the previous Neandertals. Serre and his colleagues found no evidence of mtDNA gene flow between modern humans and Neandertals in either direction, but could not rule out the possibility of limited gene flow. Interestingly, the mtDNA sequences from the Vindija Neandertals, which have a less extreme Neandertal anatomy than the classic Neandertals, and are considered transitional between modern humans and classic Neandertals by some scientists, were no closer to modern humans than the rest of the Neandertal fossils.

Is the Neandertal outside the human range?
Yes.

Note that because two modern human sequences are 24 bases apart, while the smallest Neandertal/human difference is only 22, does not mean the Neandertal sequence is within the range of modern humans. To use an analogy, suppose we measured the height of 994 adult humans, and they varied from 4'8" to 6'8" (a difference of 24 inches). Suppose we then found a skeleton which was 8'6" in height. No one would claim that it fell within the modern human range because it was closer to the nearest human (22 inches) than the tallest human was from the shortest human (24 inches).

Note also that the two figures (22 and 24) are measuring very different things, making it invalid to compare the two figures. Just as the Neandertal was compared against 994 modern humans, any of those humans could be similarly compared against the other 993 humans. We could compute the minimum, average, and maximum distance from that human to the other humans, just as was done for the Neandertal. If we calculated those values for all the humans, we could then calculate minimum, average and maximum values of all the individual minima, averages and maxima, and compare those values against the equivalent values for the Neandertal.

We do not know from the Krings et al. 1997 paper the distribution of minimum distances of humans from other humans. The smallest such value is 1. The largest such value might, I suspect, be as much as 5. The same value for the Neandertal is 22, well outside the human range.

For average distances of humans to other humans, we know the average value is 8.0. The minimum average distance will be a little less; the maximum average value must be at least 12 (this can be deduced from the fact that there are two humans 24 apart) and less than 24; I would guess it might be about 16 for a highly atypical human. For the Neandertal, the value is 27, again well outside the human range.

For maximum distances, the maximum such value is 24, but for most humans, the maximum distance to any other human will be less than that. The value of 24 is highly atypical, because it is taken between the two individuals who have indepently diverged farthest from mitochondrial Eve, and is the maximum of nearly half a million (994 * 993 / 2) comparisons among modern humans. For the Neandertal, the value is 36, again well outside the human range.

In other words, for all three measurements (minimum, average and maximum distances to other humans), the Neandertal measurement is much larger than the maximum value of the same measurement from a sample of 994 modern humans, and even further from the average value. The Neandertal is not merely outside the human range, but well outside it.
:--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:53, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Respect!
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

==Logic==
From CPWebmaster's talk page
:<blockquote>
When it comes to origins, AIG is obviously more valid than the Smithsonian. I am aware that Homo neanderthalensis is the "accepted" species, but this is merely hopeful thinking by evolutionists. In reality, Homo neanderthalensis is HUMAN. I placed it under a sub-species because I did not want it to conflict with the human article. CPWebmaster 11:49, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
</blockquote>
:If homo neanderthalensis is human as you said above, then why not list it with Homo sapiens? CPWebmaster, I can not understand why you would perceive AIG as more valid than the Smithsonian. There are thousands more scientists working and submitting to the Smithsonian than AIG. This provides a more critical environment for research. AIG struggles to have PhDs write articles within the scope of their discipline. How many times have you seen a physicist write about biology at AIG? The point is that if you plan to use taxonomy to describe an organism then you must follow taxonomy rules to describe the organism. Meaning if you wish to say that Neanderthal was a subspecies of Homo sapiens then you need to list Neanderthal as Homo sapiens. Otherwise you need to place it back with homo neanderthalensis.--TimS 12:01, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't know why I'm even trying to correct this article. You cannot use logic against religious conviction. No matter what we say he is still going to put a creationist slant on the article. [[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 12:23, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Do I even have to mention that based on a taxonomy the way this article is listed Neanderthal is of the same level as European, African, Asian, ect. If this is the case then why did they die out while Europeans thrived? If you place any of the other sub races of Homo sapiens into the environment they survive. (This is assuming that Neanderthal came about due to the tower of Babel, like the other races of man according to YECs)--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 13:22, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:I'm not sure that I follow this point, but one answer is that they did survive. There is evidence of similarities with modern humans which suggests that modern humans are, in part, descended from Neanderthals. Also, one YEC idea is that their distinctive features were due to diet and conditions, not genetics, which would suggest that they were not a separate group that died out, but are humans, and humans are still here. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:07, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:There is an issue about the YEC diet claim, If we are to follow the YEC timeline then Humans lived in the same areas as Neanderthals at the same time so we would show a difference among all of the remains instead of a particular group. If it was based on diet and not genetics than how is what I posted above with mtDNA found in Neanderthal remains explained? Their physiology is much different than a human, not something that could come from diet (You do not get eyebrow ridges, or extra length of ribs from diet)--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:17, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

::Just to add if you and CPWebmaster claim that Neanderthal were humans then you should add them to the races article.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:26, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:::You mean the [[Race]] article I presume? No, I wouldn't add them there, for the following reason. Creationists don't recognise that there are different races. We are all one race—the human race. So Neanderthals were not a different race. The article does list some "races", as they were formerly believed to be, but first, it doesn't say who believed this (I suspect an evolutionary basis), and second, for whatever reason, Neanderthals were, as far as I know, never considered as separate race, so it wouldn't be appropriate to add them to a list of what is actually a historical record. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:38, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:::That is the point I am making Philip. If this were the case then CPWebmaster is wrong in labeling this page as Homo Sapiens Neaderthalensis. This is why it should either be Homo Neaderthalensis or just Homo Sapiens. To add the other delineator would mean that it would be a race of human.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:47, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

== editing ==
By-the-by, going in and pulling the creationist part above the evolutionist part is kinda pathetic and childish.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 12:28, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I would have to agree, it is a bit sophomoric. Not to mention the statement of taxonomic labeling.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:32, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Somebody found some talking fossils apparently.

==Remind me not to spend hours on an article ever again! P.S. please don't <s>stone</s> ban me for expressing my opinion (see [[First amendment]])==

Just 2 days after I wrote this article, using only reliable sources, it's already been vandalized beyond recognition, look! It even has quotes of questionable origin already!

Do we really have to have this "but creationist assert this and quote <s>mine</s> that, and the flood ..." thingy in every article, there's plenty of that on other pages.

I did not claim this article for myself, I just set some guidelines for other editors to keep it factual and respectable (most people out there aren't YECs you know!)

Why the f*ck are there no dates in the intro anymore? Do they threaten the emotional comfort of your little <s>medieval</s> sheltered world? You think you're making Jesus proud through ignorance?

And yes, of course that picture of neanderthal men came from a website: I can't exactly go take a picture of a living neanderthal myself, now can I?

And it's "Homo neanderthlalensis", not "Homo sapiens neanderthalensis" as in separate species, Tims is a molecular biologist, what are you?

What's wrong with writing an article according to the current scientific consensus? Sure I could make something up too, maybe even twist the facts just enough to make everything fit in with Egyptian mythology! But I chose to follow the experts instead.

If the reader is a YEC he's not gonna believe this article anyway!

AiG more credible than the Smithsonian?
Yeah, of course <s>a bunch of uneducated hillbillies</s> AiG's YECs are more credible than the Smithsonian's accredited biologists and archaeologists when it comes to science!
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

Middleman, I agree with you. I thought this was conservapedia not YECpedia. No one has said that being a conservative means rejecting science as a whole. What CPWebmaster did would be considered vandalism if the POV was change.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 13:39, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I tried to add some stuff and keep it scientific, but I was reverted by the ConservativeChristianYoungEarthAntiScience Aganda. Just give up, this site is a joke anyway. The only reason I know about it is a student of mine actually used it as a source in writing a paper. [[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 13:45, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Is it that your information has been removed or merely that creationist viewpoints have been added as well? I hope both viewpoints are allowed to stand and I hope it is done in a way that is respectful to the work that each of you has put into the article. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Unfortunatly, no, the overlords have erased information that is scientific in nature and replaced it with their own ideas.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 14:27, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I have created separate articles now, with links to one another at the bottom: one for YECs and one for science, I will revert all creationist material on the evolutionary version, however I don't care about what's being written in the creationist version, feel free to add whatever "alternative worldviews" you want to that one!

YEC: [[Homo neanderthalensis (Creationist's view)|here]].

Evo: [[Homo neanderthalensis|here]]

:::stick with one article please. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim (CPAdmin1)]][[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 15:42, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

But this one's too crappy.
And that one page would have to be called Homo neanderthalensis.
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

P.S. this particular page (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) should be deleted for this to avoid confusion.

[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

:Your naming will never survive based upon how you have constructed it. You'll need to have separate sections with 'Creationist' in one title and 'Evolutionist' in the other. Also the article called 'Creationist' view appears to be merely a copy of the current article and is replete with information that does not match Creationist thought. You may wish to consider a different strategy if you wish to have any chance of success. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:08, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

If you don't like it (the creationist version) in its current form you can always edit it.

Evolution is the dominant theory, the default setting, creationism is an alternative for a minority.
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

I am still wanting to see what CPWebmaster's logic is based on what I listed above for the genius and species of Homo Neanderthalensis.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 14:44, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Don't worry, these 3 pages seem to act like coupled photons: whatever you type on one talk page, instantaneously appears on the other two as well!
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

"No other organisms, either living or fossil, made tools to make other complex tools, buried their dead, had controlled use of fire, practiced religious ceremonies, used complex syntax in their spoken grammar, and played musical instruments, yet we know from their fossils that Neanderthal engaged in all."
I still want to know how a fossilized piece of bone can tell you about complex syntax. Last time I checked fossils don't talk.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 17:25, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Just a quick note, nobody will come to an "encyclopedia" like this and search for [[Homo neanderthalensis]] or [[Homo sapiens neanderthalensis]]. Instead, they'll look for [[Neanderthal]] or [[Neandertal]]. They both redirect to the 'creationist' [[Homo sapiens neanderthalensis]]. Thus, MiddleMan's 'scientific' version will only be seen by a) who reads this talk page or b) from the Hominid category. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 04:12, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

"''And yes, of course that picture of neanderthal men came from a website: I can't exactly go take a picture of a living neanderthal myself, now can I?''". You appear to be justifying using a presumably-copyright photograph on the basis that you are unable to take your own photograph of real Neanderthals. That is not justification for using copyright photographs. And my question also pertained to the map. If the images are copyright and used without permission, they will have to go, regardless of your inability to supply an alternative. Will you do the right thing or will I delete them? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:13, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

== transitional fossil? ==

<blockquote>"Neanderthal Man is not considered to be a direct ancestor of modern humans, but their remains are examples of [[transitional fossil]]s along a subsidiary branch, an evolutionary dead end."{{fact}}</blockquote>

A transitional fossil to what? Extinction? Somehow this seems an incorrect usage. There is no linkage from one form to another. Perhaps the following wording should be employed?

<blockquote>"Neanderthal Man is not considered to be a direct ancestor of modern humans, but formed along a subsidiary branch that ended in extinction."{{fact}}</blockquote>

[[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:51, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

You're quit right, I changed it accordingly.
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

== Advice to evolutionists ==

I was going to write a piece here with the title above, but because this sort of issue has come up so often, I decided to create a sub-page of my user page to hold it instead. It relates particularly to this dispute, so I urge editors here to read my comments at [[User:Philip J. Rayment/Advice to evolutionists]]. I will, however, make some further comments on this page to some specific points. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:01, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:Philip I read and understood your points in your article. The issue I think that has to be presented is that this website claims that it is Conservative in nature not exclusively YEC. Therefore to edit strictly in a YEC POV would be falsifying the claim of the website. Even Andy has stated that this website is not specifically YEC.
::No, Conservapedia does not have a specifically YEC agenda. But our rules do not allow the kind of speculation-as-fact claims that are found on Wikipedia and other sites concerning an old earth or evolution or any other predominantly liberal ideology. Thanks.--Aschlafly 08:03, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
:So to claim that it is would be misleading. My issue with this page is the incorrect naming style used. If you are going to use scientific terminology then you need to get it right. If what CPWebmaster is true then this article should be moved under Homo sapiens. If not then he needs to correct it.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:09, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks for reading it.
::I wasn't suggesting editing in a YEC POV. I was pointing out that despite the YEC point of view that will not allow articles to be edited in an evolutionary POV, evolutionary editors continue to edit in an evolutionary POV rather than a more neutral POV that should (hopefully) be acceptable to both sides.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:28, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

::You know that timelines of the earth are geological based not evolutionary based. If we were to edit on a neutral POV then the edits that CPWebmaster did would have been reverted since they strictly removed scientific data to cause the article a more creationsit POV.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:33, 15 May 2007 (EDT)