Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Challenges to World History final exam

2009-06-04T22:29:27Z

DylanBiery: spelling correction

[[Image:History_Astronomy.jpg|right|300px]]
Two questions on the final exam have been challenged. The first is this:

Each of the following was part of nearly all medieval towns EXCEPT:
 (a) hazards of disease such as the Black Plague
 (b) enclosure by a wall
 (c) new opportunities for the middle class (bourgeoisie)
 (d) Christianity
 (e) religious conflict

The challenge is that "medieval" should include non-Christian societies such as Japan, and therefore the correct answer should be (d).

This challenge is invalid. "Medieval" refers to the Middle Ages in Europe, which was entirely Christian. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines "medieval" as pertaining to the "Middle Ages," and then defines "Middle Ages" as pertaining to Europe between about A.D. 500 and 1500.
:'''REPLY''' A Google search for "medieval" gives over 60 million results, a search for medieval Europe only returns 9 Million, clearly, the term medieval does not only apply to Europe. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:59, 1 February 2007 (EST)
:'''Further REPLY''' This website clearly does not restrict the middle ages to Europe. The [[Middle Ages Terms|Middle ages term list]] includes such entries as [[Islam]] and [[Japan]] which are not European. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:05, 1 February 2007 (EST)
:'''Further Reply''' Throughout the course, you taught that the middle ages were one of the 4 periods of '''''world''''' history, along with ancient, pre-modern and modern. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:31, 1 February 2007 (EST)
:'''Further Reply''' In [[World History Lecture Seven]] the 4th heading is "Asia in the middle ages" which includes the following "...In this section we deal with East and Southeast Asia, discussing in particular what happened in China in the Middle Ages..." --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:38, 1 February 2007 (EST)

: '''REPLY''' Good points, Tim, but I'm limiting "Middle Ages" to Europe only in interpreting the Merriam-Webster's use of the term in its definition for "medieval". Besides, didn't only Europe have "medieval '''towns'''" per the question?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:45, 1 February 2007 (EST)
::Why do you limit the term to Europe when it used by historians (say, Will & Ariel Durant) in many contexts? What are you teaching your "students"? [[User:Human|Human]] 01:25, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
:'''Reply''' You have not refuted any of my points here. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 10:12, 2 February 2007 (EST)
:'''Further Reply''' A Google searches for: medieval towns japan, medieval towns China, medieval towns Asia and medieval towns Africa, all come up with more than 1,000,000 results. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 10:08, 2 February 2007 (EST)

The second challenge is this:

An example of the element of surprise in warfare could cite which military commander?
 (a) Adolf Hitler
 (b) Hannibal
 (c) Dwight Eisenhower
 (d) George W. Bush
 (e) Archimedes

The challenge is that Hitler and Eisenhower used the element of surprise, as did Hannibal. But the element of surprise was not as important or creative in Hitler's or Eisenhower's command.

Hitler did not truly succeed based primarily on surprise. Also, he was not really a "military commander."

Eisenhower receives credit for D-Day (Normandy invasion during WW II) but everyone expected an Allied invasion of the continent and Eisenhower was merely one of many important participants in that strategy. Hannibal stands above the others in his responsibilities, creativeness, and effectiveness of his surprise.

:'''REPLY''' As a Lt. in the 10th mountain, I have a problem with this question. Surprise in warfare is not a yes or no question. Each attack has some element of surprise followed by a high amount of speed, command and control, and violence of action. Furthermore, elements of surprise can be both tactical and strategic. Strategic surprise, which seems to be the focus of this question, works on a slower pace. Where an enemy formation may indeed determine their opponents true objectives prior to the attack but is unable to shift their forces in time to counter the surprise attack. The assertion that Hannibal's attack stands above all the others is at best a personal interpretation of the facts and at worst dead wrong. Hannibal failed to capitalize on his surprise through lack of a logistical train and the inability to sack Rome, his stated goal. The question needs a great deal more clarification, such as "Which of the following commanders achieved the greatest degree of strategic surprise but failed to achieve their goals?" As stated, the question infers that the other commanders did not use surprise, which is NOT what I have learned in over 4 years of experience as an armor officer of the u.s. army. Below are brief examples of some of the surprise elements of the answer choices, all of which are integral in an understanding of military history.

: Adolf Hitler - Blitzkrieg warfare and the bypass of the french defensive line represent both strategic and tactical surprise respectively. When the french dug in, they neglected to fortify a section of forest that they deemed to be too thick for armored advance. Hitlers panzer were tough enough to mow straight through and assaulted the french from the rear, routing them completely. The battle of the bulge was also a strategic surprise, where allied command and control damaged prior to the attack, allowing for deep penetration of allied line. Only the sheer fighting spirit on the embattled American forces prevented axis success.

: Hannibal - The obvious end about through the alps was a surprise due to the southern deployment of Roman forces. Taken as a desperate defense for Carthage, the end around included massive river fording in Spain. The long journey proved to be the deal breaker as a economically strangled Carthage was unable to support the flank with resupply. When Hannibal made it to Italy, his combat power was reduced to a degree where he could only harass and force the Romans to redeploy north. Due to an inability to communicate with southern Carthaginian forces, what ever hole Hannibal opened up was not exploited.

: Dwight Eisenhower - The D-day invasion was a massive strategic surprise. By placing general Patton in command of a "decoy" army in Africa, Hitler became convinced that the invasion would center in the Mediterranean and deployed many of his available veteran units to Italy. This left Normandy defended by green units and reservists, who were unable to counter the historic airborne and amphibious invasion.

: George W. Bush - Does not really count as a commander in my book. Hitler counted because he inserted himself into all major military decisions, such as specific force deployments and the specifications of military equipment. Yet Bush did give the go ahead for the CIA/SF invasion of Afghanistan, a move that took many of the enemy by surprise. The enemy was counting on a long military build up circa Gulf War I which would have given time to prepare, instead they were faced with fights without the supplies necessary for protracted mountain warfare.

: Archimedes - Not a military commander.

: What are you teaching these children, after the 6th grade I would expect a higher level of detail and competence in a history class. Glossing over the details to this degree would get you fired from any of the history classes I have attended from middle school all the way to my professional education. Read the history before you teach it and please fix this question. --[[User:DylanBiery|DylanBiery]] 16:33, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

:'''FURTHER REPLY''' Furthermore, The assertion that Eisenhower was only partially responsible for Normandy is COMPLETELY WRONG. So wrong that I showed it to my former company commander, who teaches college level military history and ethics at Texas A&M, he lol'ed. Eisenhower was the supreme allied commander in Europe, while the details of the attack was left to his staff Eisenhower himself set it in motion and led key diversion and secrecy efforts to secure his surprise. This is perhaps more significant that Hannibal's attack because Eisenhower's enemy had the ability to see more of the allied movements through aerial, human, and signals intelligence. All of those had to be countered through massive air defense and OSI missions to maintain his element of surprise. While the question being challenged may have been a gaffe of a teacher churning out test questions. The halfhearted defense displays a gross misrepresentation of facts and is offensive to real military historian.

:“It is more honorable to repair a wrong than to persist in it” - Thomas Jefferson

--[[User:DylanBiery|DylanBiery]] 16:45, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

----

Please feel free to add your comments to this debate by editing this page directly. Simply add your user id after your comments by clicking the signature box (second from the right above).

[[Category:World History lectures]]

Challenges to World History final exam

2009-06-04T20:45:15Z

DylanBiery:

[[Image:History_Astronomy.jpg|right|300px]]
Two questions on the final exam have been challenged. The first is this:

Each of the following was part of nearly all medieval towns EXCEPT:
 (a) hazards of disease such as the Black Plague
 (b) enclosure by a wall
 (c) new opportunities for the middle class (bourgeoisie)
 (d) Christianity
 (e) religious conflict

The challenge is that "medieval" should include non-Christian societies such as Japan, and therefore the correct answer should be (d).

This challenge is invalid. "Medieval" refers to the Middle Ages in Europe, which was entirely Christian. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines "medieval" as pertaining to the "Middle Ages," and then defines "Middle Ages" as pertaining to Europe between about A.D. 500 and 1500.
:'''REPLY''' A Google search for "medieval" gives over 60 million results, a search for medieval Europe only returns 9 Million, clearly, the term medieval does not only apply to Europe. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:59, 1 February 2007 (EST)
:'''Further REPLY''' This website clearly does not restrict the middle ages to Europe. The [[Middle Ages Terms|Middle ages term list]] includes such entries as [[Islam]] and [[Japan]] which are not European. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:05, 1 February 2007 (EST)
:'''Further Reply''' Throughout the course, you taught that the middle ages were one of the 4 periods of '''''world''''' history, along with ancient, pre-modern and modern. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:31, 1 February 2007 (EST)
:'''Further Reply''' In [[World History Lecture Seven]] the 4th heading is "Asia in the middle ages" which includes the following "...In this section we deal with East and Southeast Asia, discussing in particular what happened in China in the Middle Ages..." --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:38, 1 February 2007 (EST)

: '''REPLY''' Good points, Tim, but I'm limiting "Middle Ages" to Europe only in interpreting the Merriam-Webster's use of the term in its definition for "medieval". Besides, didn't only Europe have "medieval '''towns'''" per the question?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:45, 1 February 2007 (EST)
::Why do you limit the term to Europe when it used by historians (say, Will & Ariel Durant) in many contexts? What are you teaching your "students"? [[User:Human|Human]] 01:25, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
:'''Reply''' You have not refuted any of my points here. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 10:12, 2 February 2007 (EST)
:'''Further Reply''' A Google searches for: medieval towns japan, medieval towns China, medieval towns Asia and medieval towns Africa, all come up with more than 1,000,000 results. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 10:08, 2 February 2007 (EST)

The second challenge is this:

An example of the element of surprise in warfare could cite which military commander?
 (a) Adolf Hitler
 (b) Hannibal
 (c) Dwight Eisenhower
 (d) George W. Bush
 (e) Archimedes

The challenge is that Hitler and Eisenhower used the element of surprise, as did Hannibal. But the element of surprise was not as important or creative in Hitler's or Eisenhower's command.

Hitler did not truly succeed based primarily on surprise. Also, he was not really a "military commander."

Eisenhower receives credit for D-Day (Normandy invasion during WW II) but everyone expected an Allied invasion of the continent and Eisenhower was merely one of many important participants in that strategy. Hannibal stands above the others in his responsibilities, creativeness, and effectiveness of his surprise.

:'''REPLY''' As a Lt. in the 10th mountain, I have a problem with this question. Surprise in warfare is not a yes or no question. Each attack has some element of surprise followed by a high amount of speed, command and control, and violence of action. Furthermore, elements of surprise can be both tactical and strategic. Strategic surprise, which seems to be the focus of this question, works on a slower pace. Where an enemy formation may indeed determine their opponents true objectives prior to the attack but is unable to shift their forces in time to counter the surprise attack. The assertion that Hannibal's attack stands above all the others is at best a personal interpretation of the facts and at worst dead wrong. Hannibal failed to capitalize on his surprise through lack of a logistical train and the inability to sack Rome, his stated goal. The question needs a great deal more clarification, such as "Which of the following commanders achieved the greatest degree of strategic surprise but failed to achieve their goals?" As stated, the question infers that the other commanders did not use surprise, which is NOT what I have learned in over 4 years of experience as an armor officer of the u.s. army. Below are brief examples of some of the surprise elements of the answer choices, all of which are integral in an understanding of military history.

: Adolf Hitler - Blitzkrieg warfare and the bypass of the french defensive line represent both strategic and tactical surprise respectively. When the french dug in, they neglected to fortify a section of forest that they deemed to be too thick for armored advance. Hitlers panzer were tough enough to mow straight through and assaulted the french from the rear, routing them completely. The battle of the bulge was also a strategic surprise, where allied command and control damaged prior to the attack, allowing for deep penetration of allied line. Only the sheer fighting spirit on the embattled American forces prevented axis success.

: Hannibal - The obvious end about through the alps was a surprise due to the southern deployment of Roman forces. Taken as a desperate defense for Carthage, the end around included massive river fording in Spain. The long journey proved to be the deal breaker as a economically strangled Carthage was unable to support the flank with resupply. When Hannibal made it to Italy, his combat power was reduced to a degree where he could only harass and force the Romans to redeploy north. Due to an inability to communicate with southern Carthaginian forces, what ever hole Hannibal opened up was not exploited.

: Dwight Eisenhower - The D-day invasion was a massive strategic surprise. By placing general Patton in command of a "decoy" army in Africa, Hitler became convinced that the invasion would center in the Mediterranean and deployed many of his available veteran units to Italy. This left Normandy defended by green units and reservists, who were unable to counter the historic airborne and amphibious invasion.

: George W. Bush - Does not really count as a commander in my book. Hitler counted because he inserted himself into all major military decisions, such as specific force deployments and the specifications of military equipment. Yet Bush did give the go ahead for the CIA/SF invasion of Afghanistan, a move that took many of the enemy by surprise. The enemy was counting on a long military build up circa Gulf War I which would have given time to prepare, instead they were faced with fights without the supplies necessary for protracted mountain warfare.

: Archimedes - Not a military commander.

: What are you teaching these children, after the 6th grade I would expect a higher level of detail and competence in a history class. Glossing over the details to this degree would get you fired from any of the history classes I have attended from middle school all the way to my professional education. Read the history before you teach it and please fix this question. --[[User:DylanBiery|DylanBiery]] 16:33, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

:'''FURTHER REPLY''' Furthermore, The assertion that Eisenhower was only partially responsible for Normandy is COMPLETELY WRONG. So wrong that I showed it to my former company commander, who teaches college level military history and ethics at Texas A&M, he lol'ed. Eisenhower was the supreme allied commander in Europe, while the details of the attack was left to his staff Eisenhower himself set it in motion and led key diversion and secrecy efforts to secure his surprise. This is perhaps more significant that Hannibal's attack because Eisenhower's enemy had the ability to see more of the allied movements through aerial, human, and signals intelligence. All of those had to be countered through massive air defense and OSI missions to maintain his element of surprise. While the question being challenged may have been a gaffe of a teacher churning out test questions. The halfhearted defense displays a gross misrepresentation of facts and is offensive to real military historian. --[[User:DylanBiery|DylanBiery]] 16:45, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

----

Please feel free to add your comments to this debate by editing this page directly. Simply add your user id after your comments by clicking the signature box (second from the right above).

[[Category:World History lectures]]

Challenges to World History final exam

2009-06-04T20:33:06Z

DylanBiery:

[[Image:History_Astronomy.jpg|right|300px]]
Two questions on the final exam have been challenged. The first is this:

Each of the following was part of nearly all medieval towns EXCEPT:
 (a) hazards of disease such as the Black Plague
 (b) enclosure by a wall
 (c) new opportunities for the middle class (bourgeoisie)
 (d) Christianity
 (e) religious conflict

The challenge is that "medieval" should include non-Christian societies such as Japan, and therefore the correct answer should be (d).

This challenge is invalid. "Medieval" refers to the Middle Ages in Europe, which was entirely Christian. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines "medieval" as pertaining to the "Middle Ages," and then defines "Middle Ages" as pertaining to Europe between about A.D. 500 and 1500.
:'''REPLY''' A Google search for "medieval" gives over 60 million results, a search for medieval Europe only returns 9 Million, clearly, the term medieval does not only apply to Europe. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:59, 1 February 2007 (EST)
:'''Further REPLY''' This website clearly does not restrict the middle ages to Europe. The [[Middle Ages Terms|Middle ages term list]] includes such entries as [[Islam]] and [[Japan]] which are not European. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:05, 1 February 2007 (EST)
:'''Further Reply''' Throughout the course, you taught that the middle ages were one of the 4 periods of '''''world''''' history, along with ancient, pre-modern and modern. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:31, 1 February 2007 (EST)
:'''Further Reply''' In [[World History Lecture Seven]] the 4th heading is "Asia in the middle ages" which includes the following "...In this section we deal with East and Southeast Asia, discussing in particular what happened in China in the Middle Ages..." --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:38, 1 February 2007 (EST)

: '''REPLY''' Good points, Tim, but I'm limiting "Middle Ages" to Europe only in interpreting the Merriam-Webster's use of the term in its definition for "medieval". Besides, didn't only Europe have "medieval '''towns'''" per the question?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:45, 1 February 2007 (EST)
::Why do you limit the term to Europe when it used by historians (say, Will & Ariel Durant) in many contexts? What are you teaching your "students"? [[User:Human|Human]] 01:25, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
:'''Reply''' You have not refuted any of my points here. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 10:12, 2 February 2007 (EST)
:'''Further Reply''' A Google searches for: medieval towns japan, medieval towns China, medieval towns Asia and medieval towns Africa, all come up with more than 1,000,000 results. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 10:08, 2 February 2007 (EST)

The second challenge is this:

An example of the element of surprise in warfare could cite which military commander?
 (a) Adolf Hitler
 (b) Hannibal
 (c) Dwight Eisenhower
 (d) George W. Bush
 (e) Archimedes

The challenge is that Hitler and Eisenhower used the element of surprise, as did Hannibal. But the element of surprise was not as important or creative in Hitler's or Eisenhower's command.

Hitler did not truly succeed based primarily on surprise. Also, he was not really a "military commander."

Eisenhower receives credit for D-Day (Normandy invasion during WW II) but everyone expected an Allied invasion of the continent and Eisenhower was merely one of many important participants in that strategy. Hannibal stands above the others in his responsibilities, creativeness, and effectiveness of his surprise.

:'''REPLY''' As a Lt. in the 10th mountain, I have a problem with this question. Surprise in warfare is not a yes or no question. Each attack has some element of surprise followed by a high amount of speed, command and control, and violence of action. Furthermore, elements of surprise can be both tactical and strategic. Strategic surprise, which seems to be the focus of this question, works on a slower pace. Where an enemy formation may indeed determine their opponents true objectives prior to the attack but is unable to shift their forces in time to counter the surprise attack. The assertion that Hannibal's attack stands above all the others is at best a personal interpretation of the facts and at worst dead wrong. Hannibal failed to capitalize on his surprise through lack of a logistical train and the inability to sack Rome, his stated goal. The question needs a great deal more clarification, such as "Which of the following commanders achieved the greatest degree of strategic surprise but failed to achieve their goals?" As stated, the question infers that the other commanders did not use surprise, which is NOT what I have learned in over 4 years of experience as an armor officer of the u.s. army. Below are brief examples of some of the surprise elements of the answer choices, all of which are integral in an understanding of military history.

: Adolf Hitler - Blitzkrieg warfare and the bypass of the french defensive line represent both strategic and tactical surprise respectively. When the french dug in, they neglected to fortify a section of forest that they deemed to be too thick for armored advance. Hitlers panzer were tough enough to mow straight through and assaulted the french from the rear, routing them completely. The battle of the bulge was also a strategic surprise, where allied command and control damaged prior to the attack, allowing for deep penetration of allied line. Only the sheer fighting spirit on the embattled American forces prevented axis success.

: Hannibal - The obvious end about through the alps was a surprise due to the southern deployment of Roman forces. Taken as a desperate defense for Carthage, the end around included massive river fording in Spain. The long journey proved to be the deal breaker as a economically strangled Carthage was unable to support the flank with resupply. When Hannibal made it to Italy, his combat power was reduced to a degree where he could only harass and force the Romans to redeploy north. Due to an inability to communicate with southern Carthaginian forces, what ever hole Hannibal opened up was not exploited.

: Dwight Eisenhower - The D-day invasion was a massive strategic surprise. By placing general Patton in command of a "decoy" army in Africa, Hitler became convinced that the invasion would center in the Mediterranean and deployed many of his available veteran units to Italy. This left Normandy defended by green units and reservists, who were unable to counter the historic airborne and amphibious invasion.

: George W. Bush - Does not really count as a commander in my book. Hitler counted because he inserted himself into all major military decisions, such as specific force deployments and the specifications of military equipment. Yet Bush did give the go ahead for the CIA/SF invasion of Afghanistan, a move that took many of the enemy by surprise. The enemy was counting on a long military build up circa Gulf War I which would have given time to prepare, instead they were faced with fights without the supplies necessary for protracted mountain warfare.

: Archimedes - Not a military commander.

: What are you teaching these children, after the 6th grade I would expect a higher level of detail and competence in a history class. Glossing over the details to this degree would get you fired from any of the history classes I have attended from middle school all the way to my professional education. Read the history before you teach it and please fix this question. --[[User:DylanBiery|DylanBiery]] 16:33, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

----

Please feel free to add your comments to this debate by editing this page directly. Simply add your user id after your comments by clicking the signature box (second from the right above).

[[Category:World History lectures]]

Talk:Genetics, Homosexuality, Evolutionary Paradigm, and Creation Science

2009-06-04T17:30:59Z

DylanBiery:

What is the point of this article, other than stating a generally perceived notion that liberals are more progressive than conservatives? I am all for documentation of expanded sources but this article just lays out a general idea and both sides of that. Perhaps incorporating this article in to a more relevant page might prove more useful. --[[User:DylanBiery|DylanBiery]] 13:30, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Genetics, Homosexuality, Evolutionary Paradigm, and Creation Science

2009-06-04T17:20:47Z

DylanBiery: Created page with 'What is the point of this article, other than stating a generally perceived notion that liberals are more progressive than conservatives? --~~~~'

What is the point of this article, other than stating a generally perceived notion that liberals are more progressive than conservatives? --[[User:DylanBiery|DylanBiery]] 13:20, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

Debate:Is the theory of macroevolution true?

2009-05-19T12:32:34Z

DylanBiery: /* Yes */

{{debate-science}}

Post Your Thoughts

Just like to point out that there is no theory of Macroevolution. Macroevolution is just a discription of genetic drift over time to cause noticable genetic differences. It is very missleading to have this labeled as a theory.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:46, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

For my side (evolution), I have one site. Take a good long look at it.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

== Yes ==

Arguments for * All life on Earth shares common ancestor

*All life on Earth shares common ancestor
#All life on Earth shares molecular features.
#*'''Counter:''' This is not a scientific argument for evolution. First, this argument says nothing about a *process* of evolution. It does not reveal any transitional forms between species, for examples. In fact, lots of DNA evidence tends to disprove transitions from one species to another. Second, there is no objective or scientific way to say one thing is like another. If you insist there is, then you'd have to agree that intelligent design is science also. Note, by the way, that all of Shakespeare's plays "share" similar features, but one play did not evolve by itself into another.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:54, 21 December 2006 (EST)
#**'''Counter:''' Poor argument. Shakespeare's plays are not capable of reproducing on their own. Reproduction is one cornerstone of evolution that sets living things and nonliving things apart.
#**'''Counter:''' Recent scientific discoveries <ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7244/full/nature08013.html</ref>, have demonstrated a proven link between non biotic molecular features and biotic RNA. The counters raised by Aschlafly and others on this point are empirically shown to be false.--[[User:DylanBiery|DylanBiery]] 08:32, 19 May 2009 (EDT)
#*:::What DNA evidence disproves transitions between species?
##Same macromolecules (DNA, RNA, protein)
##Same monomers for those macromolecules (five nucleotides, twenty standard amino acids)
##Same chirality of molecules. DNA in all complex life forms is right-handed, research suggests[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9802E1DB1F3DF936A15751C0A9659C8B63] that left-handed DNA would work just as well.
###If life forms did not have common ancestors we would expect to see a fairly even distribution of left and right handed DNA.
##Genetic system:
##*Ribosome structure
##*tRNA structure
##*The universal genetic code (and slight deviations from it)
##*Information encoded in nucleotide polymers (DNA or RNA).
#Differences between organisms can be explained by known mechanisms of genetic mutation.
#*'''Counter:''' There has not been enough time for mutation to generate existing biological diversity.
#**'''Counter:''' Lateral [[gene transfer]] between viruses and bacteria to more complicated life forms has been proven to occur and can account for increased mutations over time.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
#**'''Counter:''' There has been enough time enough time to generate existing biological diversity.
#***'''Counter:''' The time argument doesn't help. Decay, scattering, extinction, defects, disasters, etc., all INCREASE over time. Besides, all mutations are harmful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:54, 21 December 2006 (EST)
#****'''Counter:''' Mutations are ''mostly'' harmful, but not always.
#*****'''Counter:''' Mutations are ''mostly'' inert.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
#****'''Additional Counter:'''Decay, scattering and defects are not part of the evolutionary theory. What proof is there that disasters increase over time? The increase of entropy in the universe is not even comparable to the process of evolution, which is the opposite of randomness. Evolution relies on natural selection, which as its name suggests, selects the best adapted organisms to reproduce, not random organisms.
#****'''Additional Counter:''' Seedless watermelons are an example of a mutation, so is corn (it used to be tiny). There is no way to claim, let alone prove that all mutations are harmful.--[[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]
#****'''Counter:''' Being seedless is harmful to the watermelon. The fact that it may be helpful to people in no way proves that being seedless is helpful for the reproduction of the watermelon. --[[User:Me4real|Me4real]] 13:31, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
#*****'''Counter:''' On the contrary, mutations such as this are beneficial. To take another example, the chance mutation that caused the Banana to come in to existence has helped a single tree spread it's genetic material to most of the globe. Taking a narrow view of what is an evolutionary benefit is to fundamentally misunderstand evolution. An adaptation that causes a plant to establish a symbiotic relationship with the dominant species can be more helpful to a plant's survival than, say, one that helps it spread its seeds wider in the local area.
#******'''Counter:''' Beneficial to humans yes, but detrimental to future evolution and genetic diversity of the watermelon species. --[[User:KarmicNoose|KarmicNoose]] 14:41, 24 March 2007 (EST)
#*******But natural selection does not select features that increase diversity in a population; it selects features that increase the odds of reproduction in an individual—and preference by an agricultural species greatly increases an individual's odds of reproducing.--[[User:Άθεος|Άθεος]] 21:16, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
#****'''Counter:''' Ginger/red hair in humans is an example of a harmless, recessive mutation.--

NATURAL genetic changes can only account for diversity within a species. Mendellian genetics has demonstrated the existence of a closed field of genetic changes which can occur through the reproductive process.
#*'''Counter:''' Mendel's findings were incomplete, and were ignorant of certain structures such as chromosomes, or processes such as mutation. The latter presents a perfectly viable way for an organism to receive genetic code not present in its parents.--[[User:Άθεος|Άθεος]] 21:23, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

#*#The speed of evolution is measured by the [[w:Darwin (unit)|darwin]] (change in an organism's character by a factor of e per million years.) [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#morphological_rates]
#*#Evolution in the lab can be as high as 200,000 darwins.
#*#As measured by the fossil record, the average evolutionary rate in the wild is 370 darwins.
#*#A rate of 400 darwins is capable of turning a mouse into an elephant in just 10,000 years.
#*No other (non-human) process has been observed to generate biological diversity.
#*Extensive biological diversity existed before humans had the ability to create new forms by molecular recombination.

#*'''Counter:''' The argument concerning rate of change assumes that biological evolution is described by a linear equation. However, observation and Mendellian genetics theory suggest that evolutionary change is better described by a rational function bounded by an assymptote. For example, it is relatively easy to crossbreed a pure bred dog so that you obtain a mutt or a nearly pure bred dog of another breed. However, it will take an infinite amount of time to entirely replace the traits of the original breed with those of the new breed- the graph of evolutionary change, with change on the y-axis and time on the x-axis, has reached a horizontal assymptote. The dog remains a dog.
-Chris J
#**'''Counter:'''Um, what? I'm a bit of a mathy person and have some background in genetics as well, and the above doesn't seem to be anything but an assertion dressed up in mathematical terminology. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:06, 13 February 2007 (EST)
#**'''Counter:'''If a DNA molecule was of infinate length this argument would stand. Since DNA has a finite length it is entirely possible to remove all 'Mutt' genes from a heredetory family of dogs with selective breeding over time. Because of recombinant DNA and meisis crossover it makes it unlikely to occur - but not impossible. Joshua Z is correct, the maths is wrong.

If you look at the forms of virtually every animal alive today, the early embryo stages are virtually identical. This shows that they evolved from the same ancestor. If you look at the limbs of a lot of animals, and even the limbs of fossils, they have virtually the same structure.

I find a surprisingly good argument supporting macroevolution is that of languages. For example, all modern Western languages are essentially derived from Latin. This is repeatedly indicated in the similarities of words between languages such as English, French, German, Spanish, Italian, etc. You could say that all languages are descended from Latin. Populations broke away from the "main" latin base, corrupting the original until, centuries later, we have dozens of unique languages that readily can be proven to have descended from Latin. The same basic principle applies to macroevolution. [[[[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]] 17:19, 14 April 2007 (EDT)]]

:This is a poor argument, since German and English did not descend from Latin.--[[User:Άθεος|Άθεος]] 19:55, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Not necessarily directly, but there are very similar grammatical structures and even entire words that are similar between the three languages (English, Latin, German)
[[[[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]] 15:06, 16 April 2007 (EDT)]]

==No==

There is a theory of macroevolution, even though its own proponents deny it. Macroevolution is the theory that [[natural selection]] will create new species out of mutations, gene splicing errors and other natural phenemona, '''without''' any need for supernatural intervention.

The refusal to own up to the existence of the theory is the first suspicious thing (like Satan worshippers denying they worship Satan). The second suspicious thing is the use of all kinds of tricky '''illustrations''' and descriptions, instead of offering to show evidence.

Both are earmarks of [[Pseudoscience]].

On the other hand, it is for only a matter of religious faith to deny the theory. I certainly can't prove it's false, any more than its proponents can prove it's true. It's their faith against mine. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:42, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::'''Counter''': Except ''they'' have empirical evidence that is sufficient to explain. Where's yours? (Keep in mind that supernatural revelations are anecdotal evidence. Sorry). Faith, by definition, is belief without evidence, so it's actually their reason against your faith. [[User:Cthx]]

::::::'''Comment''': The reason that the 'proponents' of macroevolution do not own up to this theory is, in fact, because they are NOT proponents of this theory. It is actually CREATIONISTS who refer to this as 'macroevolution'. The 'proponents' of this theory simply lump both 'macroevolution' and 'microevolution' under one term - 'evolution'. The reason for this is quite simple - creationists admit that 'microevolution' occurs, as it has been proven to happen. Evolutionists say that 'macroevolution' is 'microevolution' continuing to happen for an extremely long time, so why use two different terms for the same thing? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:28, 24 February 2008 (EST)

The bible makes it clear how the species came into existence, and it gives us the most logical explanation we have. Is there any point in denying it? [[User:GodisTruth|'''Truth''']][[User_talk:GodisTruth |is power]] 13:42, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::'''Counter''': Yes, in that the Bible is most likely wrong: it is a collection of texts and stories. How is it "logical" to have species appear out of no-where? What happens to the air that was there before the animals appeared? Doesn't this supernatural Genesis contradict all natural laws we observe? If anything, this seems to be illogical.[[User:Cthx]]

Actually Cthx, The Old Testament doesnt contradict any of the natural laws of the universe. In fact, the Bible states that God created the naturalistic principles working in the universe. Things that were writtne thousands of years ago that did not make sence before are barely starting to make sence now. 17 times in the Old Testament it says that God stretches out the heavens. Nobody knew what that meant before but now we see that the universe is expanding. He also says that he holds all things together and that he stopped creating. Well we know this now. That nothing can be created or destroyed and everything is being held together. Were not figuring out anything that God isn't already in charge of. A last note. Matthew 22:29 says, "Ye do error, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God." Don't get upset however and become hard hearted and stubborn. Open your heart. "Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me." (Revelation 3:20) [[User:wapfeffer]]

:But Wapfeffer, all of the empirical evidence points torwards Evolution, and in science religious beliefs must be taken at face value. Science does not care what anybody believes, it just takes the availible info and comes up with the most logical explanation for said info. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 14:18, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Yes capercorn methinks you are correct. ;)
--[[User:Tortilla|Tortilla]] 11:54, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

RNA

2009-05-18T13:20:40Z

DylanBiery: /* From Primordial Soup */

A '''Ribonucleic acid''' (RNA) is a molecule found in all cells, comprised of many individual units of [[nucleic acid]]. It differs from DNA ([[deoxyribonucleic acid]]) in that it only contains a single, not double strand, and substitutes [[uracil]] for [[thymine]]. The sugar backbone of RNA is also composed of ribose (DNA contains deoxyribose). RNAs fall into several different categories, depending on function.

The primary role of mRNA in is to transfer a copy of the information coded in DNA to a [[ribosome]] to be expressed as a protein, using a form of RNA known as messenger RNA ([[mRNA]]). mRNA in eukaryotes undergoes spicing after transcription from DNA to remove [[introns]] or to use alternative splicing to create a different gene product. Alternatively-spliced transcripts can also express the same protein, but at different levels, due to the removal or addition of regulatory sequences.

The main role of [[tRNA]], or transfer RNA is to carry an amino acid to the mRNA (while the mRNA is in the ribosome) during translation of the mRNA into a protein.

The main role of [[rRNA]] or ribosomal RNA is to form the [[ribosome]]. RNA that has catalytic properties (such as the ribosome) is referred to as a [[ribozyme]].

Purification of RNA is problematic as enzymes that degrade RNA ([[RNases]]) are ubiquitous. Successful RNA purification depends on degradation of the DNA template used via DNase and avoidance of RNase using sterile technique.

The polio virus is an example of an organism which contains only RNA to carry its genetic information. Some [[protists]] such as ''Paramecium'' carry similar RNA genes in structures called micronuclei. These are involved in mating and replicate independently from the main cell nucleus.

==Prebiotic RNA Polymerization==

===From Primordial Soup===

John Sutherland from the University of Manchester, UK, may have found the correct combination of primordial conditions for producing RNA. These findings may lead to a refinement of scientific theories related to the transition of natural nonbiotic molecules into the first elements of biological life.

From the paper entitle "Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions" in the peer-reviewed ''Nature'' journal, the authors document their methodologies. The scientists claimed to be able to repeatably create RNA structures from a joint precursors solution (pairing the bases and sugars in the molecule), a good blast of UV light, and 5 ingredients thought to be in abundance on the pre-biotic earth.

<ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090513/sc_afp/sciencebiologylife_20090513210508 RNA] AFP. May 13, 2009</ref> While RNA generation has been happening for some time, no scientist has yet found experimental proof of DNA synthesis. DNA, which is found in all but the most simple lifeforms, has a more complex structure with its iconic double helix design. If or until scientist develop concepts of natural DNA synthesis, many important questions will remain for both the public and microbiologists.

<ref>http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227084.200-molecule-of-life-emerges-from-laboratory-slime.html</ref><ref>http://www.chemistry.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus/staff/showprofile.php?id=390</ref><ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7244/full/nature08013.html</ref>

===From Clays===
Research from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute suggests that the formation of long strands of RNA may have been catalyzed by clays such as montmorillonite. The charged clay surface attracts the nucleotides and the increased local concentration of nucleotides causes bond formation between nucleotides, forming a polymer of RNA.<ref>http://www.rpi.edu/dept/chem/chem_faculty/profiles/pdfs/ferris/Royal_Soc..pdf</ref><ref>http://www.rpi.edu/dept/chem/chem_faculty/profiles/pdfs/ferris/Alders.Mass_Spec.pdf</ref><ref>http://www.rpi.edu/dept/chem/chem_faculty/profiles/pdfs/ferris/Huang_MS_JACS_2006%203.pdf</ref>

===From Ice===
Strands of RNA have been shown to form in salty ice water. David Deamer's lab at the University of California at Santa Cruz has found that the process of freezing a dilute solution of RNA nucleotides causes the nucleotides to become concentrated as ice crystals form, eventually resulting in the formation of strands of RNA. <ref>J. P. Dworkin, D. W. Deamer, S. A. Sandford, and L. J. Allamandola. 2001. Self-assembling amphiphilic molecules: Synthesis in simulated interstellar/precometary ices. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98:815-819.</ref>

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Genetics]]
[[Category:Biochemistry]]

RNA

2009-05-18T12:53:51Z

DylanBiery: /* =From Primordial Soup */ Clarified differences between RNA and DNA

A '''Ribonucleic acid''' (RNA) is a molecule found in all cells, comprised of many individual units of [[nucleic acid]]. It differs from DNA ([[deoxyribonucleic acid]]) in that it only contains a single, not double strand, and substitutes [[uracil]] for [[thymine]]. The sugar backbone of RNA is also composed of ribose (DNA contains deoxyribose). RNAs fall into several different categories, depending on function.

The primary role of mRNA in is to transfer a copy of the information coded in DNA to a [[ribosome]] to be expressed as a protein, using a form of RNA known as messenger RNA ([[mRNA]]). mRNA in eukaryotes undergoes spicing after transcription from DNA to remove [[introns]] or to use alternative splicing to create a different gene product. Alternatively-spliced transcripts can also express the same protein, but at different levels, due to the removal or addition of regulatory sequences.

The main role of [[tRNA]], or transfer RNA is to carry an amino acid to the mRNA (while the mRNA is in the ribosome) during translation of the mRNA into a protein.

The main role of [[rRNA]] or ribosomal RNA is to form the [[ribosome]]. RNA that has catalytic properties (such as the ribosome) is referred to as a [[ribozyme]].

Purification of RNA is problematic as enzymes that degrade RNA ([[RNases]]) are ubiquitous. Successful RNA purification depends on degradation of the DNA template used via DNase and avoidance of RNase using sterile technique.

The polio virus is an example of an organism which contains only RNA to carry its genetic information. Some [[protists]] such as ''Paramecium'' carry similar RNA genes in structures called micronuclei. These are involved in mating and replicate independently from the main cell nucleus.

==Prebiotic RNA Polymerization==

===From Primordial Soup===

John Sutherland from the University of Manchester, UK, may have found the correct combination of primordial conditions for producing RNA. These findings may lead to a refinement of scientific theories related to the transition of natural nonbiotic molecules into the first elements of biological life.

From the paper entitle "Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions" in the peer-reviewed ''Nature'' journal, the authors document their methodologies. The scientists claimed to be able to repeatably create RNA structures from a joint precursors solution (pairing the bases and sugars in the molecule), a good blast of UV light, and 5 ingredients thought to be in abundance on the pre-biotic earth.

<ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090513/sc_afp/sciencebiologylife_20090513210508 RNA] AFP. May 13, 2009</ref> While RNA generation has been happening for some time, no scientist has yet found experimental proof of DNA synthesis. DNA, which is found in all but the most simple lifeforms, has a more complex structure with its iconic double helix design. If or until scientist develop concepts of natural DNA synthesis, there will remain many more unanswered questions for micro biologists everywhere.

<ref>http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227084.200-molecule-of-life-emerges-from-laboratory-slime.html</ref><ref>http://www.chemistry.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus/staff/showprofile.php?id=390</ref><ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7244/full/nature08013.html</ref>

===From Clays===
Research from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute suggests that the formation of long strands of RNA may have been catalyzed by clays such as montmorillonite. The charged clay surface attracts the nucleotides and the increased local concentration of nucleotides causes bond formation between nucleotides, forming a polymer of RNA.<ref>http://www.rpi.edu/dept/chem/chem_faculty/profiles/pdfs/ferris/Royal_Soc..pdf</ref><ref>http://www.rpi.edu/dept/chem/chem_faculty/profiles/pdfs/ferris/Alders.Mass_Spec.pdf</ref><ref>http://www.rpi.edu/dept/chem/chem_faculty/profiles/pdfs/ferris/Huang_MS_JACS_2006%203.pdf</ref>

===From Ice===
Strands of RNA have been shown to form in salty ice water. David Deamer's lab at the University of California at Santa Cruz has found that the process of freezing a dilute solution of RNA nucleotides causes the nucleotides to become concentrated as ice crystals form, eventually resulting in the formation of strands of RNA. <ref>J. P. Dworkin, D. W. Deamer, S. A. Sandford, and L. J. Allamandola. 2001. Self-assembling amphiphilic molecules: Synthesis in simulated interstellar/precometary ices. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98:815-819.</ref>

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Genetics]]
[[Category:Biochemistry]]

RNA

2009-05-18T12:50:49Z

DylanBiery: /* From Primordial Soup */

A '''Ribonucleic acid''' (RNA) is a molecule found in all cells, comprised of many individual units of [[nucleic acid]]. It differs from DNA ([[deoxyribonucleic acid]]) in that it only contains a single, not double strand, and substitutes [[uracil]] for [[thymine]]. The sugar backbone of RNA is also composed of ribose (DNA contains deoxyribose). RNAs fall into several different categories, depending on function.

The primary role of mRNA in is to transfer a copy of the information coded in DNA to a [[ribosome]] to be expressed as a protein, using a form of RNA known as messenger RNA ([[mRNA]]). mRNA in eukaryotes undergoes spicing after transcription from DNA to remove [[introns]] or to use alternative splicing to create a different gene product. Alternatively-spliced transcripts can also express the same protein, but at different levels, due to the removal or addition of regulatory sequences.

The main role of [[tRNA]], or transfer RNA is to carry an amino acid to the mRNA (while the mRNA is in the ribosome) during translation of the mRNA into a protein.

The main role of [[rRNA]] or ribosomal RNA is to form the [[ribosome]]. RNA that has catalytic properties (such as the ribosome) is referred to as a [[ribozyme]].

Purification of RNA is problematic as enzymes that degrade RNA ([[RNases]]) are ubiquitous. Successful RNA purification depends on degradation of the DNA template used via DNase and avoidance of RNase using sterile technique.

The polio virus is an example of an organism which contains only RNA to carry its genetic information. Some [[protists]] such as ''Paramecium'' carry similar RNA genes in structures called micronuclei. These are involved in mating and replicate independently from the main cell nucleus.

==Prebiotic RNA Polymerization==

===From Primordial Soup==

John Sutherland from the University of Manchester, UK, may have found the correct combination of primordial conditions for producing RNA. These findings may lead to a refinement of scientific theories related to the transition of natural nonbiotic molecules into the first elements of biological life.

From the paper entitle "Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions" in the peer-reviewed ''Nature'' journal, the authors document their methodologies. The scientists claimed to be able to repeatably create RNA structures from a joint precursors solution (pairing the bases and sugars in the molecule), a good blast of UV light, and 5 ingredients thought to be in abundance on the pre-biotic earth.

<ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090513/sc_afp/sciencebiologylife_20090513210508 RNA] AFP. May 13, 2009</ref> While RNA generation has been happening for some time, no scientist has yet found experimental proof of DNA synthesis. DNA, which is found in all but the most simple lifeforms, has a more complex structure with its iconic double helix design. If or until scientist develop concepts of natural DNA synthesis, there will remain many more unanswered questions for micro biologists everywhere.

<ref>http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227084.200-molecule-of-life-emerges-from-laboratory-slime.html</ref><ref>http://www.chemistry.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus/staff/showprofile.php?id=390</ref><ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7244/full/nature08013.html</ref>

===From Clays===
Research from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute suggests that the formation of long strands of RNA may have been catalyzed by clays such as montmorillonite. The charged clay surface attracts the nucleotides and the increased local concentration of nucleotides causes bond formation between nucleotides, forming a polymer of RNA.<ref>http://www.rpi.edu/dept/chem/chem_faculty/profiles/pdfs/ferris/Royal_Soc..pdf</ref><ref>http://www.rpi.edu/dept/chem/chem_faculty/profiles/pdfs/ferris/Alders.Mass_Spec.pdf</ref><ref>http://www.rpi.edu/dept/chem/chem_faculty/profiles/pdfs/ferris/Huang_MS_JACS_2006%203.pdf</ref>

===From Ice===
Strands of RNA have been shown to form in salty ice water. David Deamer's lab at the University of California at Santa Cruz has found that the process of freezing a dilute solution of RNA nucleotides causes the nucleotides to become concentrated as ice crystals form, eventually resulting in the formation of strands of RNA. <ref>J. P. Dworkin, D. W. Deamer, S. A. Sandford, and L. J. Allamandola. 2001. Self-assembling amphiphilic molecules: Synthesis in simulated interstellar/precometary ices. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98:815-819.</ref>

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Genetics]]
[[Category:Biochemistry]]

Talk:RNA

2009-05-18T12:40:25Z

DylanBiery:

== Virus ==

Is a virus an organism? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 04:28, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

== From Soup ==

Edited comments on replication of experimental results for clarity. From before the edit, "Doubters have been comforted by the failure to find any feasible chain of chemical events to explain how the three components all came together" This would be critical in replicating and testing the theory proposed."

The second sentence seems to indicate that RNA synthesis has not been duplicated in the lab, the statement has been change to claify that while RNA has been created, the far more complex DNA has not been. --[[User:DylanBiery|DylanBiery]] 08:40, 18 May 2009 (EDT)

RNA

2009-05-16T21:09:53Z

DylanBiery: spelling correction

A '''Ribonucleic acid''' (RNA) is a molecule found in all cells, comprised of many individual units of [[nucleic acid]]. It differs from DNA ([[deoxyribonucleic acid]]) in that it only contains a single, not double strand, and substitutes [[uracil]] for [[thymine]]. The sugar backbone of RNA is also composed of ribose (DNA contains deoxyribose). RNAs fall into several different categories, depending on function.

The primary role of mRNA in is to transfer a copy of the information coded in DNA to a [[ribosome]] to be expressed as a protein, using a form of RNA known as messenger RNA ([[mRNA]]). mRNA in eukaryotes undergoes spicing after transcription from DNA to remove [[introns]] or to use alternative splicing to create a different gene product. Alternatively-spliced transcripts can also express the same protein, but at different levels, due to the removal or addition of regulatory sequences.

The main role of [[tRNA]], or transfer RNA is to carry an amino acid to the mRNA (while the mRNA is in the ribosome) during translation of the mRNA into a protein.

The main role of [[rRNA]] or ribosomal RNA is to form the [[ribosome]]. RNA that has catalytic properties (such as the ribosome) is referred to as a [[ribozyme]].

Purification of RNA is problematic as enzymes that degrade RNA ([[RNases]]) are ubiquitous. Successful RNA purification depends on degradation of the DNA template used via DNase and avoidance of RNase using sterile technique.

The polio virus is an example of an organism which contains only RNA to carry its genetic information. Some [[protists]] such as ''Paramecium'' carry similar RNA genes in structures called micronuclei. These are involved in mating and replicate independently from the main cell nucleus.

==Prebiotic RNA Polymerization==

===From Primordial Soup===

John Sutherland from the University of Manchester, UK, has found the correct combination of primordial conditions for producing RNA. These findings may lead to a refinement of scientific theories related to the transition of natural nonbiotic molecules into the first elements of biological life.

From the paper entitle "Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions" in the peer-reviewed ''Nature'' journal, the authors document their methodologies. The scientists were able to repeatably create RNA structures from a joint precursors solution (pairing the bases and sugars in the molecule), a good blast of UV light, and 5 ingredients thought to be in abundance on the pre-biotic earth.

This advancement may prove that the synthesis of the earliest life was far more simple than previously thought.

<ref>http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227084.200-molecule-of-life-emerges-from-laboratory-slime.html</ref><ref>http://www.chemistry.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus/staff/showprofile.php?id=390</ref><ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7244/full/nature08013.html</ref>

===From Clays===
Research from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute suggests that the formation of long strands of RNA may have been catalyzed by clays such as montmorillonite. The charged clay surface attracts the nucleotides and the increased local concentration of nucleotides causes bond formation between nucleotides, forming a polymer of RNA.<ref>http://www.rpi.edu/dept/chem/chem_faculty/profiles/pdfs/ferris/Royal_Soc..pdf</ref><ref>http://www.rpi.edu/dept/chem/chem_faculty/profiles/pdfs/ferris/Alders.Mass_Spec.pdf</ref><ref>http://www.rpi.edu/dept/chem/chem_faculty/profiles/pdfs/ferris/Huang_MS_JACS_2006%203.pdf</ref>

===From Ice===
Strands of RNA have been shown to form in salty ice water. David Deamer's lab at the University of California at Santa Cruz has found that the process of freezing a dilute solution of RNA nucleotides causes the nucleotides to become concentrated as ice crystals form, eventually resulting in the formation of strands of RNA. <ref>J. P. Dworkin, D. W. Deamer, S. A. Sandford, and L. J. Allamandola. 2001. Self-assembling amphiphilic molecules: Synthesis in simulated interstellar/precometary ices. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98:815-819.</ref>

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Genetics]]
[[Category:Biochemistry]]

RNA

2009-05-16T15:51:56Z

DylanBiery: /* From Primordial Soup */

A '''Ribonucleic acid''' (RNA) is a molecule found in all cells, comprised of many individual units of [[nucleic acid]]. It differs from DNA ([[deoxyribonucleic acid]]) in that it only contains a single, not double strand, and substitutes [[uracil]] for [[thymine]]. The sugar backbone of RNA is also composed of ribose (DNA contains deoxyribose). RNAs fall into several different categories, depending on function.

The primary role of mRNA in is to transfer a copy of the information coded in DNA to a [[ribosome]] to be expressed as a protein, using a form of RNA known as messenger RNA ([[mRNA]]). mRNA in eukaryotes undergoes spicing after transcription from DNA to remove [[introns]] or to use alternative splicing to create a different gene product. Alternatively-spliced transcripts can also express the same protein, but at different levels, due to the removal or addition of regulatory sequences.

The main role of [[tRNA]], or transfer RNA is to carry an amino acid to the mRNA (while the mRNA is in the ribosome) during translation of the mRNA into a protein.

The main role of [[rRNA]] or ribosomal RNA is to form the [[ribosome]]. RNA that has catalytic properties (such as the ribosome) is referred to as a [[ribozyme]].

Purification of RNA is problematic as enzymes that degrade RNA ([[RNases]]) are ubiquitous. Successful RNA purification depends on degradation of the DNA template used via DNase and avoidance of RNase using sterile technique.

The polio virus is an example of an organism which contains only RNA to carry its genetic information. Some [[protists]] such as ''Paramecium'' carry similar RNA genes in structures called micronuclei. These are involved in mating and replicate independently from the main cell nucleus.

==Prebiotic RNA Polymerization==

===From Primordial Soup===

John Sutherland from the University of Manchester, UK, has found the correct combination of primordial conditions for producing RNA. These findings may lead to a refinement of scientific theories related to the transition of natural nonbiotic molecules into the first elements of biological life.

From the paper entitle "Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions" in the peer-reviewed ''Nature'' journal, the authors document their methodologies. The scientists were able to repeatably create RNA structures from a joint precursors solution (pairing the bases and sugars in the molecule), a good blast of UV light, and 5 ingredients thought to be in abundance on the pre-biotic earth.

This advancement may prove that the synthesis of the earliest life was far more simple than previously though.

<ref>http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227084.200-molecule-of-life-emerges-from-laboratory-slime.html</ref><ref>http://www.chemistry.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus/staff/showprofile.php?id=390</ref><ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7244/full/nature08013.html</ref>

===From Clays===
Research from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute suggests that the formation of long strands of RNA may have been catalyzed by clays such as montmorillonite. The charged clay surface attracts the nucleotides and the increased local concentration of nucleotides causes bond formation between nucleotides, forming a polymer of RNA.<ref>http://www.rpi.edu/dept/chem/chem_faculty/profiles/pdfs/ferris/Royal_Soc..pdf</ref><ref>http://www.rpi.edu/dept/chem/chem_faculty/profiles/pdfs/ferris/Alders.Mass_Spec.pdf</ref><ref>http://www.rpi.edu/dept/chem/chem_faculty/profiles/pdfs/ferris/Huang_MS_JACS_2006%203.pdf</ref>

===From Ice===
Strands of RNA have been shown to form in salty ice water. David Deamer's lab at the University of California at Santa Cruz has found that the process of freezing a dilute solution of RNA nucleotides causes the nucleotides to become concentrated as ice crystals form, eventually resulting in the formation of strands of RNA. <ref>J. P. Dworkin, D. W. Deamer, S. A. Sandford, and L. J. Allamandola. 2001. Self-assembling amphiphilic molecules: Synthesis in simulated interstellar/precometary ices. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98:815-819.</ref>

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Genetics]]
[[Category:Biochemistry]]

RNA

2009-05-16T15:49:56Z

DylanBiery: /* Prebiotic RNA Polymerization */

A '''Ribonucleic acid''' (RNA) is a molecule found in all cells, comprised of many individual units of [[nucleic acid]]. It differs from DNA ([[deoxyribonucleic acid]]) in that it only contains a single, not double strand, and substitutes [[uracil]] for [[thymine]]. The sugar backbone of RNA is also composed of ribose (DNA contains deoxyribose). RNAs fall into several different categories, depending on function.

The primary role of mRNA in is to transfer a copy of the information coded in DNA to a [[ribosome]] to be expressed as a protein, using a form of RNA known as messenger RNA ([[mRNA]]). mRNA in eukaryotes undergoes spicing after transcription from DNA to remove [[introns]] or to use alternative splicing to create a different gene product. Alternatively-spliced transcripts can also express the same protein, but at different levels, due to the removal or addition of regulatory sequences.

The main role of [[tRNA]], or transfer RNA is to carry an amino acid to the mRNA (while the mRNA is in the ribosome) during translation of the mRNA into a protein.

The main role of [[rRNA]] or ribosomal RNA is to form the [[ribosome]]. RNA that has catalytic properties (such as the ribosome) is referred to as a [[ribozyme]].

Purification of RNA is problematic as enzymes that degrade RNA ([[RNases]]) are ubiquitous. Successful RNA purification depends on degradation of the DNA template used via DNase and avoidance of RNase using sterile technique.

The polio virus is an example of an organism which contains only RNA to carry its genetic information. Some [[protists]] such as ''Paramecium'' carry similar RNA genes in structures called micronuclei. These are involved in mating and replicate independently from the main cell nucleus.

==Prebiotic RNA Polymerization==

===From Primordial Soup===

John Sutherland from the University of Manchester, UK, have found the correct combination of primordial conditions for producing RNA. These findings may lead to a refinement of scientific theories related to the transition of natural nonbiotic molecules into the first elements of biological life.

From the paper entitle "Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions" in the peer-reviewed ''Nature'' journal, the authors document their methodologies. The scientists were able to repeatably create RNA structures from a joint precursors solution (pairing the bases and sugars in the molecule), a good blast of UV light, and 5 ingredients thought to be in abundance on the pre-biotic earth.

This advancement may prove that the synthesis of the earliest life was far more simple than previously though.

<ref>http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227084.200-molecule-of-life-emerges-from-laboratory-slime.html</ref><ref>http://www.chemistry.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus/staff/showprofile.php?id=390</ref><ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7244/full/nature08013.html</ref>

===From Clays===
Research from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute suggests that the formation of long strands of RNA may have been catalyzed by clays such as montmorillonite. The charged clay surface attracts the nucleotides and the increased local concentration of nucleotides causes bond formation between nucleotides, forming a polymer of RNA.<ref>http://www.rpi.edu/dept/chem/chem_faculty/profiles/pdfs/ferris/Royal_Soc..pdf</ref><ref>http://www.rpi.edu/dept/chem/chem_faculty/profiles/pdfs/ferris/Alders.Mass_Spec.pdf</ref><ref>http://www.rpi.edu/dept/chem/chem_faculty/profiles/pdfs/ferris/Huang_MS_JACS_2006%203.pdf</ref>

===From Ice===
Strands of RNA have been shown to form in salty ice water. David Deamer's lab at the University of California at Santa Cruz has found that the process of freezing a dilute solution of RNA nucleotides causes the nucleotides to become concentrated as ice crystals form, eventually resulting in the formation of strands of RNA. <ref>J. P. Dworkin, D. W. Deamer, S. A. Sandford, and L. J. Allamandola. 2001. Self-assembling amphiphilic molecules: Synthesis in simulated interstellar/precometary ices. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98:815-819.</ref>

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Genetics]]
[[Category:Biochemistry]]