Users Online Now:
1,427
(
Who's On?
)
Visitors Today:
207,949
Pageviews Today:
278,897
Threads Today:
85
Posts Today:
1,259
02:22 AM
Directory
Adv. Search
Topics
Forum
Back to Forum
Back to Thread
REPLY TO THREAD
Subject
Something Just Went BEZERK in the Gulf of Mexico. The US Navy just sunk a French Submarine
User Name
Font color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Indigo
Violet
Black
Font:
Default
Verdana
Tahoma
Ms Sans Serif
In accordance with industry accepted best practices we ask that users limit their copy / paste of copyrighted material to the relevant portions of the article you wish to discuss and no more than 50% of the source material, provide a link back to the original article and provide your original comments / criticism in your post with the article.
[quote:P R E C E P T O R 1476622:MV8xMTEzNTg2XzI3NDU2MTM2XzkwNjQyQUM3] [quote:Krispy71:MV8xMTEzNTg2XzI3NDU1Mjc3XzkzRkNDRUUy] :5a: Lol Preper !!!! Just to make it more clear for other Beserkers : [u]WIKI:[/u][b][color=green]ACGT[/color][/b] stands for the [b]four nucleic acid bases that make up [u][color=green]DNA[/color][/u][/b]. The A stands for Adenine and pairs with the T, which stands for Thymine. The C stands for Cytosine and pairs with the G, Guanine. These four nucleic acids make up a creature's genetic code, or DNA.[1] [b][color=indigo]ACGU[/color][/b] stands for the [b]four amino acids that make up [u][color=indigo]RNA[/color][/u][/b]. RNA pairs up the same as DNA, except that Thymine is replaced with Uracil I went looking up the T ; Thymine ---> [u]WIKI:[/u]Thymine is also known as 5-methyluracil, a pyrimidine nucleobase. As the name suggests, [b]thymine may be derived by [u]methylation[/u] of uracil at the 5th carbon[/b]. [b]METHYLATION !!!![/b] (see posts of Preper and me above !!!) Here the link to the article we talked about : http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110916152401.htm WOWWWWW ...lol.... [/quote] <[b]KRISPY[/b]> Thanks for your Most helpful explanation! [b]BTW[/b] ~ Looks like [b]Crick & Watson[/b] got their standard, academic [b]DNA methodology[/b] slightly wrong! Thanks to Mark Curtis an [b]ARTIST[/b], the geometry of the [b]DNA helix[/b] can be re-structured, see this extract: [b]The geometry of DNA: a structural revision[/b] [b]Mark E. Curtis[/b] I would like to suggest a modification to the structure for the salt of deoxyribose nucleic acid (D.N.A.) that was proposed by Francis Crick and James Watson in April 1953. In 1995 I began an investigation into the structure of DNA with the intention of producing a series of drawings and paintings of the double helix. My interest stemmed from certain features of my work as an artist, specifically my inquiries into the nature and depiction of space. In the manner of renaissance perspectival artists such as Uccello, I embarked on scale drawings of the helical structure using the standard textbook dimensions that derive from x-ray diffraction data. In the course of this work, discrepancies emerged, and it became clear to me that the Crick and Watson structure does not conform to geometric principles. Indeed my attempts to translate their theory from two into three dimensions ran into considerable topological problems. Since the article in nature was published, their proposal would appear to have been fully vindicated by almost all-available empirical evidence. However, I have since discovered that a growing minority do recognise flaws in Crick and Watson’s conclusions, specifically in terms of its topology and thereby the ability of the structure to replicate itself. Although some research has even gone so far as to question the very existence of the double helical structure itself, my proposal retains the double helix as its fundamental basis. Without compromising the essence of their structure, I propose a resolution of the geometrical inconsistencies by means of a simple change in the position of alignment between the purines and pyrimidines. This realignment is founded entirely upon geometric principles and further investigation revealed a series of mathematical equations that describe a three-dimensional geometric helix that conforms to the known ratios of DNA. In this paper, I will demonstrate the mathematical basis for this re-reading of DNA and moreover the simplicity and purity it engenders, when applied to the molecular structure of the bases. [b]The Double Helix[/b] The structure of the salt of deoxyribose nucleic acid is undoubtedly a double helix, with ten bases to each turn. Moreover, the approximate dimensions of a complete turn of DNA’s helix are well known: the diameter of the helix is 20Å (angstroms), the base height is 3.4Å and thus the helix extension is 34Å. These data enabled a simplified and systematic perspective projection of the structure ... below. [b][i]Conclusions[/i][/b] This proposed structure for [b]DNA[/b] is wholly founded upon [b][i]mathematical principles[/i][/b]. [b][i]Although the geometrical modification to the base pairings is relatively minor, the resulting double helix manifests a clarity altogether distinct from that offered by Crick and Watson and would appear to shed light upon a number of areas of continuing uncertainty.[/i][/b] [b][i]The implications of these findings are inevitably far-reaching and would potentially affect many areas of research.[/i][/b] [i]However, these lie beyond my capacity to evaluate and I will restrict myself to reiterating the principal features of this proposal:[/i] [b]•Geometric equations predict the dimensions of DNA’s structure.[/b] Not only does the pentagonal geometry predict the helical dimensions but it would also demonstrate ‘principle causation’. •The pentagonal geometry provides the dynamics required to build a consistent, stable and uniform helical structure and also establishes why there should be consistently ten bases contained within a single turn of the helix. •Both the hollow centre and side-by-side structural formation ensure instant access at any point within the helix. This would permit the DNA (even circular) to open and close during its replication functions [b][i]without entangling itself.[/i][/b] [b]I have now set down a reinterpretation of DNA’s structure as I see it. [/b] It should be remembered that, by necessity, I publish this paper in my capacity [b][i]as an artist[/i][/b] and in the knowledge that nothing I have set down has yet been subjected to scientific scrutiny. This, after all, was the trigger for my initial interest. Aware of the further implications, I offer it in the hope that it may stimulate wider research and debate. [b]Mark E. Curtis 1997[/b] [b]Addendum[/b] Since my first offering of this proposal in 1997 it has met, perhaps not altogether surprisingly, with a decidedly cool response. However, that said, I remain no less convinced that there is a case to answer and that more specific scientific research needs to be undertaken - I therefore continue to maintain what I have done so already with confidence, and would like to offer the following quote from Plato as some justification for my apparent dogmatism. [b][i]“We must in my opinion begin by distinguishing between that which always is and never becomes from that which is always becoming but never is. [/i][/b] Whenever, therefore, the maker of anything keeps his eye on the eternally unchanging and uses it as his pattern for the form and function of his product the result must be good; whenever he looks to something that has come to be and uses a model that has come to be, the result is not good.” Plato - Timaeus. (28) In response to those whose minds appear fixed within the present paradigm and who would use its ‘issue’ to pick holes in some of the detail of this alternate proposal I can but quote Thomas Kuhn: “ ...the choice between competing paradigms regularly raises questions that cannot be resolved by the criteria of normal science. To the extent, as significant as it is incomplete, that two scientific schools disagree about what is a problem and what a solution, they will inevitably talk through each other when debating the relative merits of their respective paradigms. In the partially circular arguments that regularly result, each paradigm will be shown to satisfy more or less the criteria that it dictates for itself and to fall short of a few of those dictated by its opponent... The normal scientific tradition that emerges from a scientific revolution is not only incompatible but often actually incommensurable with that which has gone before... Because it has that character, the choice is not and cannot be determined merely by the evaluative procedures characteristic of normal science, for these depend in part upon a particular paradigm, and that paradigm is at issue.” [b]Thomas Kuhn - The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Ch IX & XII [/b] [b][i][u]To those whose minds are genuinely ‘open’, I would suggest the reevaluation of numerous papers, articles and books that I believe to be well worth revisiting in the light of this geometry.[/u][/i][/b] [b]In particular I draw attention to the following: [/b] Papers Crick, F. H. C. & Watson, J. D. (1953) Nature, vol 171, 737-738. Gamow, G. (1954) Nature, vol 173, 318. Furberg, S. (1949) Nature, vol 164, 22. Pauling, L. & Corey, R. B. (1953) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci, 39, 84-96 Hoogsteen, K. (1959) Acta. Cryst, vol 12, 822. Hoogsteen, K. (1963) Acta. Cryst, vol 16, 907-916. Root-Bernstein, R. (1996) Art Journal, Sp, 47-55. Bansal, M. (2003) Current Science, vol 85, 1556-1563. Books Levene, P. A. & Bass, L. W. (1931) ‘Nucleic Acids’. Todd, A. (1956) ‘Nucleic Acids’. Thompson, D’arcy (1961) ‘On Growth and Form’ abridged edition. Watson, J. D. (1968) ‘The Double Helix’. Olby, R. (1974) ‘The Path to the Double Helix’. Freeland Judson, H. (1979) ‘The Eighth Day of Creation’. Crick, F. H. C. (1989) ‘What Mad Pursuit’. Maddox, B. (2002) ‘Rosalind Franklin: The Dark Lady of DNA’. [/quote]
Original Message
My girl friend has a D.E.D link on her laptop from the French Embassy. (She works at the embassy)
Crazy traffic on DED
Pictures (click to insert)
General
Politics
Bananas
People
Potentially Offensive
Emotions
Big Round Smilies
Aliens and Space
Friendship & Love
Textual
Doom
Misc Small Smilies
Religion
Love
Random
View All Categories
|
Next Page >>