Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

ObamaCare

2013-12-01T23:14:37Z

JHunter: /* Employer Requirements */ re-worded for clarity

[[File:ObamaCareSymbol.jpg|right|150px]]
'''ObamaCare''', formally known as "'''The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act'''," will impose massive penalties on young workers, small businesses and others who choose not to buy expensive health insurance, beginning in 2014. ObamaCare is the biggest handout by [[liberals]] to a single interest group — the health insurance industry — in [[America]]n history. Even a [[Democrat]] Senator recently admitted: ObamaCare "cost [[Obama]] a lot of credibility as a leader."<ref>http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/politics-elections/222259-sen-webb-says-president-obamas-health-law-cost-him-a-lot-of-credibility-as-a-leader</ref> On June 28, 2012, the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] upheld the constitutionality of ObamaCare — by only one vote, 5-4 — as being within the taxing power of the federal government. Since then, leading Democrats have described ObamaCare as a "train wreck," and [[union]]s increasingly agree with [[conservatives]] that Obamacare should be repealed.<ref>http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/300881-labor-unions-break-ranks-on-health-law</ref>

The [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]] (AAPS) pointed out that there are no redeeming provisions of Obama's health care plan.<ref>http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/00377</ref> AAPS observes that Obama's health care plan will significantly increase the overall cost of health care for a majority of United States citizens, plus reduce the quality of care that a [[free market]] system would otherwise provide.<ref>http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/00377</ref>

Obamacare will soon cause havoc and harm to tens of millions of Americans: 28 million Americans will be caught in a "massive game of health coverage pingpong" due to [[ObamaCare]].<ref>http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-medi-cal-churn-20130520,0,5572821.story</ref>

__TOC__
[[File:Jane orient.jpg|right|200px|thumbnail|Dr. Jane Orient, Director of the [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]] (AAPS). The [[conservative]] doctors' association the AAPS has always been against ObamaCare while the liberal [[American Medical Association]] endorsed it.<ref>[http://www.aapsonline.org/index.php/article/the_right_not_to_work_for_obamacare/ The right not to work for ObamaCare]</ref><ref>[http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/why-the-ama-endorses-obamacare-but-your-doctor-does-not/ Why the AMA endorses ObamaCare]</ref> ]]
ObamaCare is opposed by many state governors, including [[Florida]] Governor [[Rick Scott]]. He declared after the Supreme Court ruling, "I will not implement this law. Florida will not implement Obamacare." Scott encouraged other states to reject ObamaCare in three ways:

*opt out of the expensive Medicaid provision in ObamaCare, which would incur massive costs in extending free care to those over the poverty line
*refuse to set up a [[health-insurance exchange]] - "If there were any value added by these exchanges, the private sector would be doing it already," Governor Scott observed
*repeal ObamaCare in Congress, which requires electing a [[Republican]] majority in the [[U.S. Senate]]

ObamaCare was passed by [[Congress]] on March 21, 2010, and signed into federal law by President [[Barack Obama]] on March 23. This law furthers the process of [[Socialism|socializing]] the [[United States]] [[health care]] system begun with [[Medicare]].<ref>Epic [[Direct_spending#New_spending|new spending]] and taxes, pricier insurance, rationed care, dishonest accounting: The Pelosi health bill has it all. [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703399204574505423751140690.html Nancy Pelosi's New Health-Care Bill], ''[[The Wall Street Journal]]'', November 01, 2009.</ref><ref>[[President Obama]], Senate Majority Leader [[Harry Reid]] and House Speaker [[Nancy Pelosi]] rammed ObamaCare down the throats of an unwilling American public. Half a year removed from the unprecedented legislative chicanery and backroom dealing that characterized the bill's passage, much more is known about the bill than when it was passed into law. [http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Obamacare-is-even-worse-than-critics-thought-960772-103571664.html Examiner Editorial: ObamaCare is even worse than critics thought], ''Washington Examiner'', September 22, 2010.</ref> The centerpiece of ObamaCare is the individual mandate, a provision that makes it mandatory for every citizen to purchase private health insurance, which is unprecedented in American history. Through legislative mandates, ObamaCare requires private citizens to purchase health insurance, involuntarily fund [[abortion]]s, and pay for sex offenders to use Viagra under the threat of legal sanctions if they do not. The new law imposes penalties that will increase to 2.5% of one's income if he fails to purchase government-approved health insurance.

On June 28, 2012, the Supreme Court voted 5–4 that, while Obamacare exceeded Congress’s authority under the commerce clause, the law was a permissible tax under the Constitution. <ref>[http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf]</ref>. The constitutionality of Obamacare was originally challenged under the theory that it exceeded the limitations of the commerce clause; more than 20 federal lawsuits have been filed against ObamaCare since President Barack Obama signed it into law.<ref>By Janet Adamy and Evan Perez. [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704058704576015631138296112.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsForth Federal Judge to Rule on Health Law's Constitutionality], WSJ.com, December 13, 2010.</ref><ref>By Rep. [[Lamar Smith]]. [http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/01/19/rep-lamar-smith-voting-repeal-new-health-care-law/ REP. LAMAR SMITH: Why I Am Voting to Repeal the New Health Care Law], ''[[Fox News]]'' (FoxNews.com), Published January 19, 2011.</ref> In total, 27 states have started or joined in a lawsuit against Obamacare.<ref>Brandon Stewart. [http://blog.heritage.org/2011/01/17/list-of-states-suing-over-obamacare/ List of 27 States Suing Over ObamaCare], heritage.org, January 17, 2011.</ref> A federal judge ruled on 13 December 2010 that a central component of ObamaCare, the requirement that most Americans carry insurance or pay a penalty, violates the Constitution. U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson is quoted as saying the law "exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power."<ref name=unconstitutional>Judge Rules Mandatory Insurance Unconstitutional; First Round of Long Battle. [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703727804576017552229615230.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEADNewsCollection Court Strikes at Health Law], By Janet Adamy (WSJ.com), December 14, 2010.</ref> Then on 31 January 2011 federal judge Roger Vinson ruled that as a result of the unconstitutionality of the "individual mandate" that requires people to buy insurance, the entire law must be declared void.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/31/judges-ruling-health-care-lawsuit-shift-momentum-coverage-debate/ Judge Rules Health Care Law Is Unconstitutional], [[Fox News|FoxNews.com]], Published January 31, 2011.</ref><ref>[[Rush Limbaugh]]. [http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/content/home/daily/site_020111/content/01125106.guest.html Obamacare Ruled Unconstitutional, But Fight for Repeal Must Continue], RushLimbaugh.com, February 1, 2011.</ref> The U.S. district judge declared ObamaCare unconstitutional because it violates the [[Commerce Clause]]. In a footnote attached to the ruling, federal judge Roger Vinson cited Barack Obama's position in 2008 from an interview with [[CNN]], when Obama stated that, "If a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house."<ref>Stephen Dinan. [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/31/judge-uses-obamas-words-against-him/ Judge uses Obama’s words against him], ''[[The Washington Times]]'', January 31, 2011.</ref>

The [[Congressional Budget Office]] (CBO) estimates the invasive revenue generating device could produce as much as $36 billion over ten years.<ref>[http://allnurses-central.com/world-news-current/proposed-senate-plan-405168.html Proposed Senate Plan Would Involve IRS in Collecting Fines from Non-participants], ALLNURSES CENTRAL, Jul 03, 2009.</ref> The fines are euphemistically dubbed "shared responsibility payments."<ref>http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/cbo-reports-entitlements-and-shared-responsibility</ref> Employers would be required to deduct the penalties from employees' paychecks.<ref>http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/00421</ref> The State of [[Massachusetts]] has had a similar program in place for several years, and many have elected to pay the penalties rather than purchase insurance, and many remain uninsured.<ref>http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/00421</ref>

ObamaCare will do more than detrimentally impact healthcare accessibility. According to the [[Heritage Foundation]], Obama is intentionally sacrificing millions of jobs, at a time when unemployment is around 10%, with the Medicare surtax without any objective exception of increases in revenues.<ref>http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/03/Obamas-Capital-Gains-Tax-Hike-Unlikely-to-Increase-Revenues</ref> ObamaCare will cost 650,000 U.S. jobs if it is not repealed. The Congressional Budget Office says the figure would be more than 800,000 people would lose their jobs. <ref>[http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cbo-director-says-obamacare-would-reduce-employment-800000-workers_547288.html CBO Director Says Obamacare Would Reduce Employment by 800,000 Workers, Weekly Standard, February 10, 2011]</ref>

On January 19, 2011, the [[U.S. House of Representatives]] voted 245-189 to repeal ObamaCare (56 percent to 44 percent). In an historic repudiation of an entitlement program that was only 10 months old, the House voted to overturn President Obama's health care takeover.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/19/house-poised-vote-health-law-repeal/ House Republicans Vote to Overturn ObamaCare in Symbolic Move], [[Fox News|FoxNews.com]], Published January 19, 2011.</ref><ref>An historic repudiation of an entitlement that is only 10 months old. ''[[Wall Street Journal]]'', Review & Outlook: [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704590704576091973130244618.html The Repeal Vote], January 20, 2011.</ref> Repealing the bill would eliminate $770 billion in the newly mandated tax increases, according to the CBO.<ref>Philip Klein. [http://spectator.org/blog/2011/01/07/breaking-cbo-says-repealing-ob CBO Says Repealing ObamaCare Would Reduce Net Spending by $540 Billion], ''The American Spectator'', January 07, 2011.</ref> The CBO released accounting data which shows that repealing the national health care law would reduce net government spending by $540 billion in the ten year period from 2012 through 2021; that number represents the cost of the new provisions, minus [[Medicare]] cuts. The [[Tea Party Movement]] firmly supports the proposed repeal of ObamaCare.

On February 2, 2011, the [[U.S. Senate]] proceeded with a hearing to discuss the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and whether or not the individual mandate requiring Americans to purchase health insurance under penalty of a fine is constitutional.<ref>Amanda Carey. [http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/03/senate-hearing-on-health-care-bills-constitutionality-had-more-show-than-substance/ Senate hearing on health care bill’s constitutionality had more show than substance], ''The Daily Caller'', February 03, 2011.</ref> The amendment to repeal ObamaCare failed in the Senate by a 51-47 vote.<ref>[[Michelle Malkin]]. [http://michellemalkin.com/2011/02/02/undoing-obamacare-senate-repeal-fails-47-51-on-party-line-vote-1099-provision-killed-83-17/ Undoing Obamacare: Senate repeal fails 47-51 on party-line vote; 1099 provision killed 83-17], MichelleMalkin.com, February 2, 2011.</ref>

==2009-2010 Bill History==
===Background===
Obama during the 2008 elections had campaigned on healthcare reform, promising that the negotiations would not be behind closed doors, but televised publicly on C-Span.<ref>Spiering, C. (2010, January 6). "[http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/beltway-confidential/2010/01/video-obama-promises-health-care-negotiations-will-be-cspan Video: Obama Promises That Healthcare Negotiations Will Be On C-Span]." ''Washington Examiner''. Holan, A.D. (2009, July 10). "[http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/517/health-care-reform-public-sessions-C-SPAN/ Obama Said He'd Televise Health Reform Negotiations on C-Span]." ''PolitiFact''.</ref> He had also promised Planned Parenthood on July 17, 2007, that "reproductive care" would be central to the coming healthcare bill, and that he believed it important for Planned Parenthood to be part of the system<ref>McGurn, William (2009, November 9). "[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704402404574525962492620186.html The Man Who Made Pelosi Cry 'Uncle']." ''Wall Street Journal''.</ref>: {{cquote|"Well, look, in my mind, reproductive care is essential care. It is basic care. So it is at the center and at the heart of the plan that I propose... Essentially what we are doing is to say that we're going to set up a public plan that all persons, and all women, can access if they don't have health insurance. It'll be a plan that will provide all essential services, including reproductive services, as well as mental health services, and disease-management services, because part of our interest is to make sure that we're putting more money into preventive care. And so many of women's diseases are preventable if they're getting access to regular care. So we subsidize women who don't have health insurance, or can't afford low group rates. We also will subsidize those who prefer to stay in the private insurance market, except the insurers are going to have to abide by the same rules in terms of providing comprehensive care, including reproductive care, and mental care services, and they won't be able to keep people out as a consequence of pre-existing conditions. So, that's going to be absolutely vital... I still believe that it is important for organizations like Planned Parenthood to be part of that system, because many young women for example may be much more comfortable when they're in college, or universities, or in other places, going to Planned Parenthood clinics and services, to get contraception, for example."
-Barack Obama before Planned Parenthood, July 17, 2007<ref>nrlccomm (2009, August 18). "[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cqww8jmizug Obama Promises Abortion in Public Plan]." ''YouTube''.</ref>}}
===Democrat Supermajority===
On April 28, 2009, the 2008 [[Wall Street Journal's]] prediction of a '[[Liberal]] [[Supermajority]]'<ref>(2008, October 17). "[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122420205889842989.html A Liberal Supermajority]." ''Wall Street Journal''.</ref> proved correct; as the defection of Senator [[Arlen Specter]] from the [[Republican Party]] to the [[Democratic Party]] put the Democrats on the verge of one of the rarest blessings in politics, a Supermajority - complete control of the [[House]], [[Senate]], and [[Presidency]] so that they wouldn't need a single Republican vote to pass bills.<ref>Davis, S. (2009, April 28). "[http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/04/28/sen-specter-to-switch-parties-democrats-near-60-vote-majority/ Sen. Specter To Switch Parties, Democrats Near 60 Vote Majority]." Washington Wire. ''Wall Street Journal''.</ref> Senator Bernie Sanders then urged the Democrat party to pursue single-payer healthcare reform.<ref>keithmsnbcer (2009, April 29). "[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGYBbFMeFNc Bernie Sanders on Ed Show]." ''MSNBC''. YouTube.</ref> On May 16, 2009, [[Barack Obama]] urged [[Congress]] to pass health care reform within the year, stating, "Our businesses will not be able to compete; our families will not be able to save or spend; our budgets will remain unsustainable unless we get health care costs under control".<ref>(2009, May 16). "[http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5js3WXGJZSiC4UpHS8rzfumBXGd-w Obama Urges Health Care Reform by Year's End]." ''AFP''.</ref> On July 1, 2009, [[Al Franken]] was finally declared the winner of his election (narrowly winning by 312 votes<ref>Gilbert, K. (2009, July 1). "[http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/al-franken-win-hands-supermajority-to-senate-democrats Al Franken Win Hands Supermajority to Senate Democrats]." ''LifeSiteNews''.</ref>), giving the Democrats their desired Supermajority, and a clear path towards [[healthcare]] reform which Republicans would be powerless to stop.<ref>Hulse, C. (2009, July 1). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/us/politics/02cong.html Congressional Memo - What's So Super About a Supermajority?]" ''New York Times''.</ref> Nevertheless, sickness of [[Ted Kennedy]] and [[Robert Byrd]] along with several other factors led to question marks about the supermajority's strength.<ref>Pergram, C. (2009, July 1). "[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/01/democrats-senate-supermajority-strong-advertised/ Democrats' Senate Supermajority Not As Strong As Advertised]." ''FOX News''. Stewart, J. (2009, July 1). "[http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-july-1-2009/indecision-2008---franken-s-time Indecision 2008 - Franken's Time]." The Daily Show With Jon Stewart. ''Comedy Central''.</ref> Democrats maintained this Supermajority until February 5, 2010, when Republican [[Scott Brown]] was sworn in to replace deceased Senator [[Edward Kennedy]].<ref>(2010, February 5). "[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/05/democrats-lose-supermajority-brown-sworn/ Democrats Lose Supermajority as Brown Sworn In]." ''Associated Press''.</ref>
====Locking Out Republicans, Literally====
Democrats were so confident that the 2008 elections displayed [[American]] backing for the Democratic Party that in October 2009 they even changed the door locks for the House [[Oversight and Government Reform Committee]] to keep Republicans from meeting when Democrats weren't present.<ref>Crabtree, S. (2009, October 20). "[http://thehill.com/homenews/house/63941-democrats-lock-republicans-out-of-committee-room Democrats Lock Republicans Out of Committee Room]." ''The Hill''. Pershing, B. (2009, October 23). "[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/22/AR2009102204442.html Democrats on House Committee Lock Out Republicans]." ''Washington Post''.</ref> The debacle occurred because Republicans were trying to launch an investigation into corruption by Democrat Senators [[Kent Conrad]] and [[Chris Dodd]] for receiving special VIP loans from [[Countrywide Financial]].<ref>Sherman, J. (2009, October 20). "[http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28531.html Towns Locks Republicans Out, Literally]." ''Politico''. Klein, R. & Jaffe, M. (2009, October 21). "[http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/10/dems-lock-out-republicans-literally/ Dems Lock Out Republicans - Literally]." ''ABC News''.</ref> Democrats canceled the meeting by secretly leaving before the meeting was to begin, and a GOP staffer caught this on videotape, set it to the tune of "Hit the Road, Jack", and posted it on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee’s minority webpage for the press. Committee Chairman Sen. [[Edolphus Towns]] and the Democrats then had the locks changed in retaliation.<ref>Freeman, J. (2009, October 20). "House Democrats Lock GOP Out of Committee Room]." ''Wall Street Journal''. (2009, October 21). "[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/21/oversight-panels-democrats-lock-republicans-dispute/ Oversight Panel's Democrats Lock Out Republicans After Dispute]." ''FOX News''.</ref>
====Public Option Removed====
On July 8, 2009, Barack Obama met with hospital [[lobbyists]] and struck a deal with the hospital industry to remove the [[public option]] in exchange for the industry's support of the bill, while also reducing costs for hospitals under the plan.<ref>Mogulesku, M. (2010, March 16). "[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/ny-times-reporter-confirm_b_500999.html NY Times Reporter Confirms Obama Made Deal to Kill Public Option]." ''Huffington Post''. Manjunath, Y. (2010, October 6). "[http://www.alan.com/2010/10/06/obamas-not-so-secret-deal-with-the-hospital-industry-to-kill-the-public-option/ Obama's Not-So-Secret Deal With the Hospital Industry to Kill the Public Option]." ''AlanColmes.com''. Manjunath, Y. (2010, October 7). "[http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/10/07/908619/-Obama-rsquo-s-Not-So-Secret-Deal-With-The-Hospital-Industry-To-Kill-The-Public-Option Obama's Not-So-Secret Deal With the Hospital Industry to Kill the Public Option]." ''Daily Kos''.</ref> {{cquote|"Not to worry, [[Jim Messina]], the deputy [[White House]] [[chief of staff]], told the hospital lobbyists, according to White House officials and lobbyists briefed on the call. The White House was standing behind the deal, Mr. Messina told them, capping the industry’s costs at a maximum of $155 billion over 10 years in exchange for its political support... Several hospital lobbyists involved in the White House deals said it was understood as a condition of their support that the final legislation would not include a government-run health plan paying [[Medicare]] rates — generally 80 percent of [[private sector]] rates — or controlled by the [[secretary of health and human services]]. 'We have an agreement with the White House that I’m very confident will be seen all the way through conference,' one of the industry lobbyists, Chip Kahn, director of the Federation of American Hospitals, told a Capitol Hill newsletter."
-David Kirkpatrick, ''[[New York Times]]'', [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/health/policy/13health.html Obama is Taking an Active Role in Talks on Health Care Plan]<ref>Kirkpatrick, D. (2009, August 13). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/health/policy/13health.html?pagewanted=all Obama is Taking an Active Role in Talks on Health Care Plan]." ''New York Times''.</ref>}} In November 2009, an amendment proposed by [[Dennis Kucinich]] to let states have single-payer healthcare systems without insurance industry lawsuits was stripped from the healthcare bill because [[Nancy Pelosi]] said it would break Obama's promise to let people keep their current insurance plans if they liked them.<ref>Grim, R. (2010, March 18). "[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/05/pelosi-single-payer-amend_n_347017.html Pelosi-Single Payer Amendment Breaks Obama's Health Care Promise]." ''Huffington Post''.</ref> Kucinich expressed frustration with the move, stating, "They took single-payer off the table right at the beginning, because the table was set by [[insurance]] companies."<ref>Grim, R. (2010, March 18). "[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/29/pelosi-not-planning-to-al_n_339188.html Pelosi Not Planning to Allow Amendments to Health Care Bill]." ''Huffington Post''.</ref> On March 25, 2010, Obama claimed the public option wasn't included "Because we couldn"t get it through Congress, that's why." He also on December 22, 2009 erroneously<ref>(2011, July 27). "[http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/dec/23/barack-obama/public-option-obama-platform/ Public Option Was in Obama's Platform]." Truth-O-Meter. ''Politifact''. Jilani, Z. (2009, December 22). "[http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/12/22/74682/obama-repeatedly-touted-public/?mobile=nc FLASHBACK: Obama Repeatedly Touted Public Option Before Refusing To Push For It In The Final Hours]." ''ThinkProgress.org''. Hamsher, J. (2009, September 10). "[http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/09/10/yes-obama-campaigned-on-a-public-option/ Yes, Obama Campaigned on a Public Option]." ''FireDogLake''.</ref> claimed that he hadn't campaigned on a public option.<ref>Jacobson, L. & Drobnic Holan, A. (2010, March 26). "[http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/518/create-public-option-health-plan-new-national-heal/ Create a Public Option Health Plan for a New National Health Insurance Exchange]." The Obameter. ''PolitiFact''. Murray, M. & Montanaro, D. (2009, December 23). "[http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2009/12/23/4424556-did-obama-campaign-on-public-option?lite Did Obama Campaign on Public Option?]" First Read. ''MSNBC''.</ref> Following Obama's claim, a liberal group, [[The Progressive Change Campaign Committee]], began airing television ads accusing Obama of breaking his promise of a single-payer healthcare plan.<ref>Seelye, K. (2009, December 23). "[http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/23/liberal-group-accuses-obama-of-reneging-on-promises/ Liberal Group Accuses Obama of Reneging on Promises]." ''New York Times''.</ref>
====Tax on Medical Device Makers====
The only healthcare industry to not readily acquiesce to the administration's demands for cooperation, medical device manufacturers, were hit with a 2.3% [[excise]] tax.<ref>LeBlanc, S. (2010, June 7). "[http://www.boston.com/business/taxes/articles/2010/06/07/medical_device_makers_new_tax_will_cost_jobs/ Medical Device Makers: New Tax Will Cost Jobs]." ''Associated Press''. Morris, D. & McGann, E. (2009, October 23). "[http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/healthcare/64493-obama-taxes-pacemakers-heart-valves Obama Taxes Pacemakers, Heart Valves]." Pundits. ''The Hill''. Musgrove, M. (2009, October 14). "[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/13/AR2009101303015.html Planned Tax on Medical-Device Makers Too High, Firms Say]." ''Washington Post''.</ref> [[The Wall Street Journal]] suggested this was due to retaliation since the tax would add just $40 billion in funds for a bill costing $900 billion.<ref>(2009, September 18). "[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204518504574418941379207328.html The Innovation Tax]." ''Wall Street Journal''.</ref> Medical device makers continue to accuse the tax of costing jobs in 2012.<ref>Kelly, S. (2012, April 18). "[http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/18/medicaldevices-tax-idUSL2E8FI25620120418 Medical Device Tax May Spur Price Hike, Cost Cuts]." ''Reuters''. Pecquet, J. (2012, March 26). "[http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/medical-devices-and-prescription-drug-policy-/218151-medical-device-makers-decry-cost-of-new-tax- Medical Device Makers Decry Cost of New Tax]." HealthWatch. ''The Hill''. Flavelle, C. (2012, March 22). "[http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-03-22/how-much-will-the-medical-device-tax-hurt How Much Will the Medical Device Tax Hurt?]" ''Bloomberg Businessweek''.</ref>
===Role of Pro-Life Democrats===
====House Bill: H.R. 3962====
=====Stupak's Resistance=====
In June and July 2009 some 200 [[Planned Parenthood]] [[activists]] arrived in [[Washington D.C.]]<ref>Connolly, C. (2009, July 13). "[http://voices.washingtonpost.com/health-care-reform/2009/07/state_of_play_democrats_dig_in.html State of Play: Democrats Dig In Despite Senate Focus on Hearings]." Daily Dose. ''Washington Post''.</ref> and a number of [[Pro-Choice]] bills began receiving support, as the Pro-Choice movement sought to ensure [[abortion]] would be mandated in health care reform.<ref>Novak, V. (2009, July 31). "[http://www.factcheck.org/2009/07/surgery-for-seniors-vs-abortions/ Surgery for Seniors vs. Abortions?]" ''FactCheck.org''.</ref> The Republicans would find an unlikely ally in the [[Pro-Life Democrats]] (Democrats for Life of America). On June 25, 2009, 19 of them, led by Congressman [[Bart Stupak]], sent a letter to House leader Nancy Pelosi expressing refusal to support any healthcare bill with an [[abortion]] agenda<ref>Kenworthy, Z. (2009, June 30). "[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,529632,00.html President Obama's Approval Index Rating Takes a Dive]." ''FOX News''. Russert, L. (2009, July 16). "[http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2009/07/16/4429288-health-bill-to-floor-in-two-weeks Health Bill to Floor in Two Weeks]." First Read. ''MSNBC''.</ref>, which firmly stated, "''Therefore, we cannot support any health care reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan... By ensuring that abortions are not funded through any health care reform package, we will take this controversial issue off the table so that Congress can focus on crafting a broadly-supported health care reform bill.''"<ref>Gilbert, Kathleen (2009, June 26). "[http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2009/jun/09062608 Pro-Life Democrats Unite to Protect Unborn Children in Healthcare Restructuring]." ''LifeSiteNews''.</ref>

In July, Stupak introduced the [[Stupak-Pitts amendment]] to ensure [[abortions]] would not be [[subsidized]] in the healthcare bill<ref>(2009, July 22). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-5180854-503544.html Dem Says Abortion Language a Must in Healthcare Bill]. ''CBS News''.</ref>, but it was defeated 30-29 in the [[Energy and House Committee]], the committee responsible for drafting it for proposal to the entire [[House of Representatives]], when [[Bart Gordon]] sneakily switched his vote from Yes to No last minute.<ref>McCormack, J. (2009, July 31). "[http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/07/house_democrat_introduces_comp.asp Waxman Strong-Arms Vote to Allow Abortion Coverage in Public Plan]." ''The Weekly Standard''.</ref> Chairman [[Henry Waxman]] replaced it with the [[Capps amendment]], which mandated one healthcare plan in each state must cover abortions.<ref name=menges>Menges, D. (2009, October 30). "[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/31/stupak-on-the-attack/ Stupak On the Attack]." ''The Washington Times''.</ref> On July 17, 2009, Obama once more urged rapid passage of the healthcare bill.<ref>(2009, July 17). "[http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hXW-UnAKQIiTxd2SoCN6TDQ0Fm3Q Obama Urges Congress to Pass Health Care Reform]." ''AFP''. Ferraro, T. & Smith, D. (2009, September 10). "[http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/10/us-usa-healthcare-obama-idUSTRE5881V520090910 Democrats Seek to Build Momentum On Healthcare]." ''Reuters''.</ref> Pro-Life Democrats then, in mid-July, nearly stopped the healthcare process in its tracks by initially defeating a rule required to start healthcare reform legislation, 215-214, but Democrats managed to persuade a few members to change their votes, barely passing it.<ref>Pergram, C. (2009, July 17). "[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/17/abortion-debate-complicate-efforts-overhaul-health-care Abortion Debate May Complicate Efforts to Overhaul Health Care]." ''FOX News''.</ref>

Obama on July 16 pressured Republicans to support the healthcare bill, even as the [[Congressional Budget Office]] criticized the proposed healthcare reform for not paying for itself.<ref>Dixon, K. (2009, July 16). "[http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/07/16/usa-healthcare-idUSN1641208920090716?pageNumber=2 WRAPUP 2-Obama Looks for Republican Healthcare Backing]." ''The New York Times''.</ref> Republicans criticized the lack of [[tort reform]] and insistence on covering 5.6 million [[illegal immigrants]].<ref>(2009, July 22). "[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/22/president-obama-uses-magnetism-political-capital-push-health-care/ President Obama Uses Magnetism, Political Capital to Push Health Care Bill]." ''FOX News''.</ref> Obama predicted he would be held responsible if the bill failed, stating: {{cquote|"You know, I intend to be president for a while and once the bill passes, I own it. And if people look and say, 'You know what? This hasn't reduced my costs. My [[premiums]] are still going up 25 percent, insurance companies are still jerking me around,' I'm the one who's going to be held responsible."<ref>Kroft, S. (2009, September 13). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18560_162-5301098.html?pageNum=2&tag=contentMain;contentBody Obama on Health Care: 'I Own It']." 60 Minutes. ''CBS News''.</ref>}} Obama initially claimed that allegations of abortion in the healthcare bill were "fabrications" by "people who are bearing false witness."<ref>Bordlee, D. (2009, September 30). "[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113335539 Pelosi & Co. Talk Abortion]." ''The National Review''. Winfield, P. (2009, October 23). "[http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/octoberweb-only/142-52.0.html Health Care Reform Splits Democrats on Abortion]." ''Christianity Today''.</ref> On August 21, he said, in a radio talk show, that claims of abortion in the bill were "not true".<ref name=menges /> However, a detailed [[FactCheck.org]] analysis concluded Obama went too far in decrying claims of abortion in healthcare as fabrications, since his own previous promise of "[[reproductive]] services" in the bill coupled with the bill's wording showed that abortion likely would be subsidized by government under the bill.<ref>Jackson, B. (2009, August 21). "[http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/abortion-which-side-is-fabricating/ Abortion: Which Side Is Fabricating?]" ''FactCheck.org''.</ref> On September 9, Obama continued to assert the bill would not fund abortions, promising immediately after [[Joe Wilson]] famously stood up and yelled "You lie!", that "Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions."<ref name=menges />

In late September after 31 different Pro-Life Democrats had signed various letters opposing abortion in the healthcare bill, Nancy Pelosi and Obama began meeting with their leader, Bart Stupak, for the first time.<ref>Kirkpatrick, D. (2009, September 28). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/health/policy/29abortion.html Abortion Fight Complicates Healthcare Debate]." ''New York Times''. Gilgoff, D. (2009, November 9). "[http://www.usnews.com/news/religion/articles/2009/10/09/the-countrys-emerging-shift-on-abortion?page=2 The Country's Emerging Shift on Abortion]." ''U.S. News & World Report''.</ref> Stupak denied claims that he was trying to "kill" healthcare reform, stating publicly at the time, "I believe we need comprehensive healthcare reform and I am excited that we are closer than we have ever been to passing a healthcare reform bill in Congress. But any reform must address legitimate concerns, including using public funding for abortions, even if party leaders disagree."<ref>Stupak, B. (2009, October 29). "[http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/65297-i-am-not-trying-to-kill-health-reform-abortion-issue-is-key Stupak: I am Not Trying to Kill Health Care Reform; Abortion Still a Concern]." ''The Hill''.</ref> On October 21, a coalition of Pro-Life groups led by key Republicans, including [[Mike Pence]], delivered a petition signed by 137,000 Americans to Congress expressing disapproval with the healthcare reform legislation.<ref>Brandt, J. (2009, October 21). "[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/21/house-members-raise-concerns-abortion-funding-health-reform/ House Members Raise Concerns Over Abortion Funding in Health Reform Bill]." ''FOX News''.</ref>
=====Bill Introduced=====
On October 26, the House healthcare bill was unveiled, a 1,930 page piece of legislation, the [[Affordable Healthcare for America Act]] (H.R. 3962).<ref>Allen, J. & Soaghan, M. (2009, November 29). "[http://thehill.com/homenews/house/65409-pelosi-unveils-healthcare-bill-house-moves-toward-floor-vote Pelosi Unveils Healthcare Bill; House Moves Toward Floor Vote]." ''The Hill''. Jackson, J. (2009, November 7). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-5570605-503544.html Key Provisions of the House Healthcare Bill]." ''CBS News''.</ref> Representative Mike Pence (R-IN) accused the bill of being a "government takeover of health care in America".<ref>Barrett, T., Bash, D., et. al. (2009, October 29). "[http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/29/health.care/ House Democrats Unveil $894 Billion Health Care Bill]." ''CNN''.</ref> By early November, the House was trying to pass the healthcare bill<ref>(2009, November 4). "[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/04/democrats-running-time-address-abortion-dispute-health-care-reform/ Democrats Running Out of Time to Address Abortion Dispute]." ''FOX News''. Oliphant, J. (2009, November 4). "[http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2009-11-04/news/0911030597_1_abortion-rights-activists-supporters-of-abortion-rights-hyde-amendment Delay on Health Care Bills Loom in Congress]." ''The Chicago Tribune''. (2009, November 2). "[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/02/abortion-health-care-reform-question/ Abortion Part of Health Care Reform Still in Question]." ''FOX News''. (2009, November 2). "[http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20091102/editorial02_st.art.htm Abortion Foes Seek to Use Health Plan to Curb Access]." ''USA Today''.</ref> but Bart Stupak claimed 40 Pro-Life Democrats could vote with him if his Stupak-Pitts Amendment was not voted on to prevent abortion funding in the bill.<ref>Bacon Jr., P. (2009, November 3). "[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/02/AR2009110203232.html Some Democrats Concerned Over Abortion Provisions in Health Bill]." ''The Washington Post''. McCormack, J. (2009, September 21). "[http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/941kghiv.asp Democratic Dissenters]." ''The Weekly Standard''.</ref> With 218 votes required for passage, this would derail the historic vote set to occur on November 7.<ref>Whitesides, J. (2009, November 4). "[http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/11/05/us-usa-healthcare-congress-idUSTRE5A233B20091105 Democrats Wrestle With Abortion on Health Bill]." ''Reuters''. Soraghan, M. (2009, October 22). "[http://thehill.com/homenews/house/64439-whip-count-shows-dems-lack-votes-on-public-plan Whip Count Shows Democrats Lack Votes on 'Robust' Public Option for Healthcare]." ''The Hill''.</ref> While Senate Leader [[Harry Reid]] (D-UT) sought to create a separate bill in the Senate, he continued to lack the 60 votes needed for a public option, i.e. a government insurance program.<ref>Jen.sen, K. & Litvan, L. (2009, November 2). "[http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aTYrPXF97cFw Senate, House Move Closer on Health Bills as Battle Goes Public]." ''Bloomberg''.</ref>
=====Passage=====
Bart Stupak and his 40 Pro-Life Democrats refused to budge,<ref>(2009, November 6). "[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120161271 No Public Money for Abortion]." ''The National Review''.</ref> and Pelosi until the last day tried to play 'chicken', denying the Stupak Amendment its vote.<ref>McCormack, J. (2009, November 5). "[http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/11/post_149.asp Pelosi Likely to Allow Vote on Phony Abortion Compromise Ellsworth Amendment (Update)]." ''The Weekly Standard''.</ref> On November 7 Obama made personal last-minute contact with moderate Democrats in an attempt to persuade them to vote for the healthcare bill without Stupak's amendment.<ref>Haberkorn, J. (2009, November 7). "[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/07/furious-scramble-for-health-reform-support/ Furious Scramble for Health Reform Support]." ''The Washington Times''. Allen, J. & Hooper, M. (2009, November 7). "[http://thehill.com/homenews/house/66787-health-bill-reaches-moment-of-truth Health Bill Reaches Moment of Truth]." ''The Hill''.</ref> A desperate Nancy Pelosi met with Bart Stupak last-minute and at his request, the [[Conference of Catholic Bishops]]<ref>''Associated Press'' (2009, November 11). "[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/11/catholic-bishops-inserting-influence-health-care-fight/ Catholic Bishops Sway Health Care Fight]." Retrieved from ''FOX News''.</ref>, ultimately allowing the Stupak-Pitts amendment its vote, which passed by a vote of 240-194.<ref>Silva, C. (2009, November 23). "[http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2009/11/23/gvsa1123.htm Abortion Amendment Threatens to Derail Health Reform]." ''The American Medical Association''. Duin, J. (2009, November 19). "[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/19/duin-catholics-celebrate-their-stand-on-health-bil/ Catholics Celebrate Their Stand on Health Bill]." ''The Washington Times''.</ref> While some Republicans had considered voting 'Present' on the Stupak amendment to defeat it and thus perhaps healthcare reform, Pro-Life groups opposed the strategy and were scoring the vote so less than a 'Yes' would change a member's perfect Pro-Life rating.<ref>Hooper, M. (2009, November 9). "[http://thehill.com/homenews/house/67091-house-gop-mulled-present-strategy-on-abortion-amendment House GOP Mulled 'Present' Strategy on Abortion Amendment]." ''The Hill''.</ref> Republican House leader [[John Boehner]] confronted Democrat [[Charles Rangel]] on the House floor, asking whether the Stupak language would be preserved in the final bill or removed in the end, stating, "I have my doubts this language if it passes has any chance of being in the final version of this bill".<ref>(2009, November 9). "[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/07/republicans-question-abortion-agreement-effort-stop-health-care-momentum/ Republicans Question Abortion Agreement in Effort to Stop Health Care Momentum]." ''FOX News''.</ref> Boehner refused to vote for the bill without a guarantee the language would be kept.<ref>Phillips, K. (2009, November 7). "[http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/07/rangel-boehner-tangle-over-ethics-abortion/ Rangel and Boehner Tangle Over Ethics and Abortion]." ''The New York Times''.</ref> {{cquote|"Republican congressional leaders have to be chuckling right now. In the end, all the [[tea-party]] town halls, [[Glenn Beck]] rallies and '[[death panel]]' rumors may have less of a hand in bringing down health care reform than an intraparty Democratic culture war. Congressman Bart Stupak of Michigan, whose amendment restricting abortion coverage on all policies sold through the new insurance exchange paved the way for passage of health reform in the House of Representatives, vows that 'there will be [[hell]] to pay' if his language gets stripped out of, or weakened in, the final legislation."
-Amy Sullivan, ''[[Time Magazine]]'', [http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1939600,00.html#ixzz1vJ6ILjRr Can Dems Resolve Their Abortion Split?]<ref>Sullivan, Amy (2009, November 16). "[http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1939600,00.html#ixzz1vJ6ILjRr Can Dems Resolve Their Abortion Split?]" ''Time Magazine''.</ref>}} On November 8, 2009, the House healthcare bill, newly amended with the Pro-Life Stupak-Pitts amendment, narrowly passed the House by a vote of 220-215.<ref>''Associated Press'' (2009, November 9). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/07/politics/main5570400.shtml House Passes Landmark Healthcare Bill]." ''CBS News''. Condon, S. (2009, November 16). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/09/politics/main5588038.shtml Health Care Progress Report: November 9]." ''CBS News''.</ref> [[Joseph Cao]] was the only Republican to vote in favor of the bill.<ref>Haberkorn, J. (2009, November 12). "[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/12/cao-explains-his-breaking-rank-in-health-care-vote/ Lone GOPer: Health Vote Could End Career]." ''The Washington Times''.</ref> 39 Democrats still voted against the bill, including many fiscally conservative [[Blue Dog Democrats]] and socially conservative Pro-Life Democrats affiliated with DFLA.<ref>Blake, A. (2009, November 10). "[http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/67097-at-risk-dems-defend-their-tough-votes At-Risk Democrats Defend Their Tough Votes on Healthcare Reform Bill]." ''The Hill''.</ref>
=====Reaction=====
Afterwards, Obama stressed that it was time for the Senate to "take the baton."<ref>(2009, November 8). "[http://articles.cnn.com/2009-11-08/politics/health.care_1_public-option-republican-filibuster-health-insurance?_s=PM:POLITICS Obama: Time For Senate to 'Take the Baton' on Health Care Reform]." Healthcare Insurance. ''CNN''.</ref> Several Democrats including [[Debbie Wasserman Schultz]] (D-FL) revealed they voted for the bill only with the understanding that it would be removed from the final bill version.<ref>O'Brien, M. (2009, November 9). "[http://thehill.com/index2.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=66969&pop=1&page=8&Itemid=70 Senior Democrat is 'Confident' that Stupak Amendment Will be Stripped]." ''The Hill''.</ref> The passage of Stupak's Pro-Life amendment in the House healthcare bill led to a letter signed by 40 Pro-Choice Senate Democrats, led by [[Dianna DeGette]]<ref name=thrush>Thrush, G. (2009, November 17). "[http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29651.html Abortion Causes Family Feud for Democrats]." ''Politico''. Halloran, L. (2009, November 10). "[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120254656 Democrats Face Backlash Over House Abortion Limits]." ''NPR''. Cooper, C. (2009, November 10). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504365_162-5605926-504365.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody The Left's Stupak Stupification]." Coop's Corner. ''CBS News''.</ref>, saying that they would not pass healthcare reform unless Stupak's amendment was removed,<ref>Litvan, L & Rowley, Rowley, J. (2009, November 9). "[http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aaqkPE6p_8ig Abortion Curbs Draw 40 Democrats' Threat of 'No' Vote (Update 1)]." ''Bloomberg''. Young, J. (2009, November 9). "[http://thehill.com/homenews/house/67099-liberals-threaten-to-sink-health-bill-over-abortion Liberals Threaten to Oppose Healthcare Bill Over Stupak Abortion Amendment]." ''The Hill''. (2009, November 27). "[http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/11/27/abortion-s-new-battleground.html Abortion's New Battleground]." ''Newsweek Magazine''.</ref> even as Senate Pro-Life Democrats vowed to reject any bills with abortion agendas. Senator [[Ben Nelson]] (D-NE) promised, "If it isn’t clear that government money is not to be used to fund abortions, I won’t vote for it," and Obama assured that "This is a health-care bill, not an abortion bill."<ref>Jen.sen, K. & Litvan, L. (2009, November 10). "[http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aI.clKoFb__M Abortion Issue Threatens Healthcare Overhaul Plan (Update 1)]." ''Bloomberg''. (2009, November 10). "[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/10/abortion-haggling-looms-health-care-debate-senate/ Abortion Haggling Looms Over Health Care Debate in Senate]." ''FOX News''. Franke-Ruta, G. (2009, November 13). "[http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/11/a-new-frontier-opens-up-in-the.html A New Frontier in the Abortion Wars: Health Insurance]." 44 - Politics and Policy. ''The Washington Post''.</ref>

On the Pro-Life side, a website, StopTheAbortionMandate.com, was created, and [[Susan's B. Anthony's List]], an [[Abortion#Activist|anti-abortion group]], fund-raised in attacks on the bill, receiving contributions over 50% above the previous year's levels, which it used in advertising attacks on Sen. Harry Reid. On the Pro-Choice side, Stupak's stand drew the anger of liberal groups.<ref>Kirkpatrick, D. (2009, November 23). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/24/health/policy/24abortion.html?_r=1 Health Bill Revives Abortion Groups]." ''The New York Times''. (2009, November 27). "[http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/11/27/abortion-s-new-battleground.html Abortion's New Battleground]." ''Newsweek Magazine''.</ref> The Progressive Change Campaign Committee performed three "Stop Stupak" fundraisers and began issuing attack ads against him in his home state of [[Michigan]].<ref>Price, D. (2009, November 12). "[http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=DTNB&s_site=detnews&f_site=detnews&f_sitename=Detroit+News%2C+The+%28MI%29&p_multi=DTNB&p_theme=gannett&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=12BEFFE1532DF538&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM Group Raises Cash, Will Take Stupak to Task]." ''The Detroit News''. Clift, E. (2009, November 12). "[http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/11/12/both-parties-abandon-women-s-rights.html Both Parties Abandon Women's Rights]." ''Newsweek''.</ref> [[CNN's]] [[Rachel Maddow]] predicted a revolt among [[women]].<ref>Depke, D. (2009, November 13). "[http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/11/13/stupak-is-as-stupak-does.html Stupak Is as Stupak Does]." ''Newsweek Magazine''.</ref>

Democratic Senator [[Barbara Boxer]] vowed to keep the Stupak-Pitts amendment from passing in the [[Senate]].<ref name=thrush /> White House Senior Advisor [[David Axelrod]] claimed Obama would intervene to change the Stupak language, and Stupak responded with "They're not going to take it out. If they do, health care will not move forward,. We won fair and square. ... That's why Mr. Axelrod's not a legislator. He doesn't really know what he's talking about."<ref>(November 17, 2009). "[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/17/stupak-health-care-stall-white-house-strips-abortion-restrictions/ Stupak: Health Care Bill Will Stall if White House Strips Abortion Restrictions]." ''FOX News''.</ref> Polls taken in mid-November showed public support for the Pro-Life Democrat position. 61% of Americans, according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey, oppose using federal money for abortions, while a [[CBS News]] poll found 56% oppose federal subsidies for abortions.<ref>Black, N. (2009, November 18). "[http://www.christianpost.com/news/most-americans-against-abortion-coverage-in-health-care-bill-41906/ Most Americans Against Abortion Coverage in Health Care Bill]." ''The Christian Post''.</ref>
====Senate Bill: H.R. 3962====
On November 18 the U.S. Senate under Senate Leader Harry Reid introduced its own health care bill (H.R. 3962 The Affordable Health Care for America Act), separate from the House bill. Obama called this bill a 'milestone' and urged Congress to pass it quickly.<ref>Bazinett, K. & McAuliff, M. (2009, November 19). "[http://articles.nydailynews.com/2009-11-19/news/17939142_1_reform-bill-illegal-immigrants-public-health-insurance-plan Senate Rolls Out $849 Billion Health Care Reform Bill; President Obama Urges Congress To Act Quickly]. ''New York Daily News''.</ref>

Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska attempted to introduce the [[Nelson Amendment]], a [[Pro-Life]] amendment identical to the Stupak-Pitts amendment, but it was defeated 54-45 on December 8.<ref>Feldmann, L. (2009, December 9). "[http://www.minnpost.com/christian-science-monitor/2009/12/nelson-amendment-fails-health-care-abortion-battle-isn’t-over Nelson Amendment Fails, But Healthcare Abortion Battle Isn't Over]." ''The Christian Post''.</ref> Four Senators stood in the way of the bill's passage, [[Ben Nelson]], [[Mary Landrieu]], [[Blanche Lincoln]], and [[Joe Lieberman]].<ref>Tantaros, A. (2009, December 16). [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/06/obama-heads-captiol-hill-health-care-push/ The Senate's Health Care Bill Isn't On My Christmas List]. ''[[FOX News]]''. Cordes, N. (2009, December 15). [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/15/eveningnews/main5983872.shtml What Will it Take to Win Over Lieberman?]. ''[[CBS News]]''.</ref> By December 16th, both Landrieu and Lieberman had agreed to support the bill since its public option and Medicare expansions were removed.<ref>Haberkorn, J. (2009, December 17). [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/17/democrats-recraft-health-bill-to-win-passage/?feat=home_headlines Dems Recraft Health Bill to Win Passage]. ''The Washington Times''.</ref> Lieberman agreed only on condition that Medicare not be expanded to include Seniors as young as 55.<ref>(2009, December 16). [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/16/senate-dems-contemplate-half-loaf-health-care/ Democrats' Health Care Wish List Cut Short]. ''Associated Press''.</ref> Landrieu in the process agreed to take $100 million in Medicaid money for her state, and was accused by Republican [[John Cornyn]] as having been "bribed".<ref>Sherman, J. (2009, December 18). [http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30783.html Mary Landrieu hot over NRSC comments]. ''Politico''.</ref>
{{cquote|"We are approaching the eve of Christmas and maybe in that spirit, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid morphed into Santa Claus, giving out presents to the little boys and girls who were naughty and (not so) nice this year. Of course, he was not using his own money. America's overused credit card, issued by the Bank of China, may have to be used one more time to pay for Reid's deals. The majority leader traded to help ensure the votes of Sens. Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Chris Dodd, Bernie Sanders and others representing 11 states by giving them special perks for staying on the health care bus that's about to drive us all over the financial cliff."
-[[Ed Rollins]], [http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/12/23/rollins.health.care.deals.reid/ Harry Reid Playing Santa With Your Money], [[CNN]].<ref>Rollins, E. (2009, December 23). [http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/12/23/rollins.health.care.deals.reid/ Harry Reid Playing Santa With Your Money]. ''[[CNN]]''.</ref>}}
On December 19 following 13 hours of negotiations, Senator Nelson finally agree to back the Senate bill in exchange for tighter restrictions on abortion and increased Medicaid funding for his state.<ref name=hersz>Herszenhorn, D.M. & Hulse, C. (2009, December 19). [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/20/health/policy/20health.html?pagewanted=all Democrats Clinch Deal for Deciding Vote on Health Bill]. ''[[The New York Times]]''.</ref> The [[National Right to Life Committee]] opposed Nelson's compromise and said it was "light years removed" from the House bill's language per the Stupak Amendment.<ref>Jensen, K. & Litvan, L. (2009, December 20). [http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aim3g2AJwUHI House, Senate Health-Care Legislation: Side-by-Side Comparison]. ''Bloomberg''.</ref> A day later, both the RNC and Rick Santorum then initiated a robocall to 100,000 Nebraskans asking them to call Ben Nelson and ask him to reconsider.<ref>Budoff Brown, C. (2009, December 19). [http://www.politico.com/livepulse/1209/RNC_Santorum_hit_Nelson_in_robocall.html?showall RNC, Santorum hit Nelson in Robocall]. ''Politico''.</ref> On December 22nd, the GOP led by [[John McCain]] began accusing Nelson of a "Cornhusker Kickback" because his state had received $45 million of Medicare funding in the deal. Nelson denied this, claiming "I didn't ask for a special favor here".<ref>Scott, B. (2009, December 22). [http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/gop_blasts_kickback_health_fix_dAelgwc0jXXhMD6fwB05IK GOP blasts 'kickback' health fix]. ''[[New York Post]]''.</ref> Landrieu's deal was likewise criticized as the "Louisiana Purchase".<ref>Rowley, J. & Gaouette, N. (2009, December 23). [http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aIkM0vXz_yxk Republicans Assail ‘Cornhusker Kickback’ Health Deals (Update1)]. ''[[Bloomberg]]''.</ref>

Both the [[AARP]] and [[American Medical Association]] ran ads urging Senators to vote for the bill. On December 24, 2009, the Senate passed its bill on a party-line vote, 60-39, without a single Republican vote.<ref>Pear, R. (2009, December 24). [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/25/health/policy/25health.html Senate Passes Health Care Overhaul on Party-Line Vote]. ''The New York Times''.</ref>

===Reconciliation===
The possibility of splitting healthcare into two bills and reconciling them was rumored as early as August 20, 2009.<ref>Weisman, J. & Bendavid, N. (2009, August 20). "[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125072573848144647.html New Rx for Health Plan: Split Bill]." ''The Wall Street Journal''. Hetchtkopf, K. (2009, August 20). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-5255030-503544.html Dems Might Split Healthcare Reform Into Two Bills]." ''CBS News''.</ref>

<ref>Bash, D., Glass, E., & Walsh, D. (2010, March 19). "[http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/19/health.care.abortion/ Abortion Again an Issue in Health Care Debate]." ''CNN''.</ref>

==Effort to Repeal==
The Individual Mandate requiring U.S. citizens to buy healthcare was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court as constitutional in 2012. It is possible the entire bill could end up getting repealed.<ref>(2012, April 7). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7404552n Obama vs. Supreme Court: How Serious?]" ''CBS News''.</ref> A ''CBS News''/''New York Times'' poll taken March 21-25, 2012, found that just 26% of Americans want the Supreme Court to keep the entire healthcare law intact.<ref>Condon, S. (2012, March 26). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57404793-503544/poll-1-in-4-want-supreme-court-to-uphold-health-care-law/?tag=featuredPostArea Poll: 1 in 4 Want Supreme Court to Uphold Health Care Law]." ''CBS News''.</ref>

Obama criticized the Supreme Court for considering the case, saying to overturn the bill would be "unprecedented" and was criticized by Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, who said he should "back off. Let the Court do its work. Let our system work the way it was intended."<ref>Condon, S. (2012, April 5). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57410114-503544/mcconnell-tells-obama-to-back-off-on-supreme-court/ McConnell Tells Obama to 'Back Off' on Supreme Court]." ''CBS News''.</ref> Following this, Obama conceded the Supreme Court does have the power to overturn the bill.<ref>(2012, April 5). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7404408n WH Concedes Court's Power to Kill Health Care Law]." ''CBS Evening News''.</ref>

The Congressional Budget Office in 2011 projected that repealing the bill would add $211 billion to the deficit, but this was contradicted in April 2012 by economist Charles Blahouse who said the bill adds $340 billion to the deficit.<ref>''Associated Press'' (2012, April 10). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57411669/study-obamas-health-care-law-will-add-at-least-$340-billion-to-deficit/?tag=cbsnewsLeadStoriesArea Study: Obama's health care law will add at least $340 billion to deficit]." Retrieved from ''CBS News''.</ref>

== Basic Requirements ==

Beginning in 2014, Americans will be required to buy government-approved, private health insurance or else pay a penalty.

Health insurance companies will be required to spend on medical care at least 80% of the premium payments they receive from individual and small-group plans (and at least 85% from large group plans). The federal government will define what constitutes medical care.

=== Immediate Impact in 2010 ===

Creating temporary high-risk pool with subsidized premiums for certain people with pre-existing conditions.

Imposing new taxes on some facilities, such as tanning parlors.

Health insurers raised premiums for Americans as a direct result of President Obama's health care overhaul.<ref>Janet Adamy. [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703720004575478200948908976.html?KEYWORDS=health+care+insurance+premiums Insurers Pin Rate Hikes on Health Law], ''[[Wall Street Journal]]'', September 07, 2010.</ref><ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703340904575285002595068326.html?KEYWORDS=health+care+insurance+premiums Health Law Augurs Transfer of Funds From Old to Young], WSJ.com, July 25, 2010.</ref>

=== Requirements for Insurance Companies ===

Prohibit bans on pre-existing health conditions in children, lifetime and annual limits on expenses, and limits coverage exclusions of pre-existing health conditions in adults.

Requires family policies to include children up to age 26.

Does allow states to form compacts in order to allow the interstate sale of insurance.

Requires direct access to obstetrical and gynecological care, which might include [[abortion]].

Creates (by 2014) health insurance exchanges or marketplaces that will be state-based and state-administered, but states can opt out of this if certain conditions are met; insurance can be sold within the exchange only if government-approved, but insurance can be sold outside of the exchange.

Prohibits health plans from discriminating against providers, but plans are not required to contract with any provider.

Requires health plans to develop politically correct language services, community outreach and cultural competency trainings.

=== Employer Requirements ===

Requires that employers with more than 50 full-time employees provide health insurance or pay a penalty.

Employers with 25 or fewer full-time employees, receiving average salaries of $50,000 or less, can apply for tax credits in order to provide their employees with health insurance.

=== Medicaid ===

ObamaCare expands Medicaid (medical care for the poor) to everyone (under the Medicare age of 65) who has income less than 133% the federal poverty level. States must pay this enormous new burden, but federal government promises to reimburse costs of newly eligible patients under this program from 2014 to 2016.

=== New Bureaucracy ===

Establishes a new Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan (CO-OP) program with the goal of creating non-profit, member-run health insurance companies in every state

=== Impact on the deficit and expanded welfare spending ===
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that Obamacare’s refundable health insurance tax credits (or [[tax expenditure]]s<ref>[http://www.concordcoalition.org/publications/facing-facts/1996/0913/back-door-entitlement The Back-Door Entitlement], The Concord Coalition.</ref> in D.C. parlance) will add to the [[national debt]] $1.36 trillion in the first seven years of implamentation. 85% of filers who claim the tax credit will end the year with zero or negative income tax liability. Since the tax credit is refundable, nearly all 11.3 million of these filers will have negative income tax liability and will no longer pay the cost of government by contributing federal income taxes. Tax credits, or tax expenditures, are a form of federal un-appropriated [[backdoor spending]].

For example, a family of four at 200 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (about $48,677 in 2016) cannot pay more than 6.3% of their income for health insurance. The CBO estimates that the average cost of the reference insurance plan (the plan used to calculate the tax credit) will be $14,100 for family coverage in 2016. Therefore, a family of four that qualifies for a credit in 2016 and that makes $48,677 would be required to pay about $3,067 for health insurance (6.3% of household income). The difference, $11,033, is the value of this family’s refundable tax credit. According to the CBO, 20 million Americans will receive health insurance tax credits in 2020 at a cost of $130 billion.<ref>[http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/10-27-11_Obamacares_Subsidies_and_Tax_Distribution_Final.pdf Impact of the Obamacare Tax Credits], House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Staff Report, October 27, 2011.</ref>

== Basis for Legal Challenges ==
===Commerce Clause===
There have been several grounds for challenging the Cosntitutionality of the bill. ObamaCare includes an "individual responsibility requirement" compelling persons to buy health insurance or pay a penalty. The one legal justification for this requirement by Congress is the [[Commerce Clause]]:
{{cquote|The individual responsibility requirement provided for in this section ... is commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce, as a result of the effects described in paragraph (2). ... [Paragraph (2) states,] The requirement regulates activity that is commercial and economic in nature: economic and financial decisions about how and when health care is paid for, and when health insurance is purchased.}}

Apparently uncertain that this would withstand legal scrutiny as a valid exercise of Commerce Clause authority, on March 21 (the same day as passage) the Joint Committee on Taxation released a 157-page "technical explanation" of the bill. This "explanation" grounded the justification for the bill in the tax authority of Congress, and nowhere mentioned commerce. As Professor Randy Barnett explained in an article on April 29, 2010 in the Wall Street Journal:
{{cquote|The word "commerce" appeared nowhere. Instead, the personal mandate is dubbed an "Excise Tax on Individuals Without Essential Health Benefits Coverage." But while the enacted bill does impose excise taxes on "high cost," employer-sponsored insurance plans and "indoor tanning services," the statute never describes the regulatory "penalty" it imposes for violating the mandate as an "excise tax." It is expressly called a "penalty."}}

Professor Barnett then explained that in ''Bailey v. Drexel Furniture'' (1922), "the Supreme Court struck down such a penalty saying, 'there comes a time in the extension of the penalizing features of the so-called tax when it loses its character as such and becomes a mere penalty with the characteristics of regulation and punishment.'" A subsequent Supreme Court decision, ''U.S. v. Kahriger'' (1953), upheld a punitive tax on gambling based on an express statement in the law that Congress was exercising its power to tax. No such statement exists in ObamaCare. ''See also Sonzinsky v. U.S.'' (1937) ("Inquiry into the hidden motives which may move Congress to exercise a power constitutionally conferred upon it is beyond the competency of courts."). Professor Barnett noted that the penalty is not enforced as a tax in a customary manner, providing further evidence that ObamaCare is based on the Commerce Clause and not on any taxing authority.

Requiring Americans to buy insurance "would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers," wrote Judge Hudson, a George W. Bush appointee in the Eastern District of Virginia. The federal judge also wrote:
{{Cquote|At its core, this dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance—or crafting a scheme of universal health insurance coverage—it's about an individual's right to choose to participate.<ref name=unconstitutional/>}}

It has also been pointed out that because the penalty applies to inactivity, it is beyond the powers authorized by the [[Sixteenth Amendment]].

Since the [[federal]] judge decided the entire healthcare reform bill law was unconstitutional, states such as Alaska have decided not to implement the mandated reforms. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/17/alaska-governor-refuses-enact-obamacare/?test=latestnews Alaska Governor Refuses to Enact 'ObamaCare', Fox News, February 17, 2011]</ref> This prompted Obama's Justice Department to appeal to Judge Vinson by claiming that states cannot ignore the new health care law while his ruling is being appealed.

===Origination Clause===
On September 12, 2012, the [[Pacific Legal Foundation]] filed suit in a Washington, D.C., federal court, arguing that the mandate is unconstitutional under the [[Origination clause]].<ref>[http://www.abajournal.com/mobile/article/amended_suit_claims_obamacare_was_enacted_in_violation_of_origination_claus/ Amended Suit Claims Obamacare Was Enacted in Violation of Origination Clause] ABA Journal. Welss, Debra.</ref> The Origination Clause (Article I, Section 7, clause 1 of the Constitution) provides that "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."

On September 17, 2009, Congressman Charlie Rangel introduced a bill in the House, H.R. 3590, the "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009," whose purpose was "to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees." The bill passed the House on October 8 by a 416-0 vote.

On November 19, Harry Reid introduced his own version of H.R. 3590 in the Senate. He took the bill that had been unanimously passed by the House, renamed it the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," deleted all its contents after the first sentence, and replaced it with totally different content. What followed was the first pass of the Senate version of ObamaCare.<ref>[http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/29/Justice-Roberts Justice Roberts Turns Obamacare into Origination Clause Shell Game] Breitbart. Leahy, Michael P.</ref>

Thus, the only portion of Obamacare to originate in the House was its number, hardly in line with the Origination Clause. However, Congress frequently uses this same practice for many years, and if the Supreme Court were to overturn the law based on the Origination Clause, a large number of other laws would be open to court challenge as well.

==History of Mandatory Coverage==

One of the early proposals (a predecessor to the one enacted) would create a system to require adults (over age 19, U.S. citizens, not incarcerated) to enroll themselves and dependent children in a plan through the state-wide Health Help Agency (HHA) unless they provide evidence of enrollment or coverage through Medicare, a health insurance plan offered by the Department of Defense, an employee benefit plan through a former employer (i.e. retiree health plans), a qualified collective bargaining agreement, the Department of Veterans Affairs, or the Indian Health Service. The law contains a religious exemption for people, such as [[Christian Scientists]] who do not receive health care. {{USC|26|5000A(d)(2)}}. Each adult would have the responsibility to enroll each child in a plan. Dependent children include individuals up to age 24 claimed by their parents for deductions in the tax code.
[[File:Penalty.jpg|right|thumbnail|200px|If an individual fails to purchase coverage and does not meet the exceptions or the religious exemption, then under Obamacare a financial penalty may be assessed for non-indigent individuals.]]

===History of Penalty for Failure to Purchase Coverage===

Monthly payments for Obamacare are massive, roughly 12-15% of an individual's annual salary. If an individual fails to purchase coverage and does not meet the exceptions or the religious exemption, then a financial penalty will be assessed for non-indigent individuals. Under an early proposal for mandatory care, the penalty was calculated by multiplying the number of uncovered months times the weighted average of the monthly premium for a plan in the person’s coverage class and coverage area, plus 15 percent. One individual who makes $45,000-$55,000 a year signed up and selected the "Silver Plan" and was told he would have to pay $597.00 with a $13,988 yearly deductible; when he opted out and elected to remain uninsured, he was told he would be fined $4,037, with the threat of suspension of his drivers license and a Federal lien placed on his home<ref>http://www.infowars.com/obamacare-fines-to-be-seized-from-bank-accounts/</ref>. This individual was forced, like every other individual who signed up for it, to input his personal information on the registration website before he actually was allowed to see the costs involved.

Fines were to be paid to the HHA of the State in which the person resides. That agency also may establish a procedure to waive the penalty if the penalty poses a hardship. Each State would determine appropriate mechanisms to enforce the requirement that individuals be enrolled.<ref> http://wyden.senate.gov/issues/Healthy%20Americans%20Act/HAA_Section_by_Section.pdf (Link doesn't work.)</ref>

The law that was enacted replaced the state-based approach with a direct penalty to be paid to the United States.

===Privacy Rights===

Section 163 of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 would allow the government real-time access to a person's bank records - including direct access to bank accounts for electronic fund transfers.<ref>[http://www.infowars.com/obama-health-bill-allows-government-real-time-access-to-bank-accounts/ Obama Health Bill Allows Government Real-time Access to Bank Accounts], Kurt Nimmo, Infowars, August 3, 2009.</ref><ref>[http://kfyi.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=118695&article=5824042 Health Care Bill Would Allow Feds To Snoop in Your Checkbook], KFYI News.</ref><ref>http://www.littlegreenfootballs2.com/2009/07/22/inside-the-health-care-bill-aka-hr3200/</ref><ref>http://www.kfyi.com/cc-common/mlib/622/08/622_1249314906.pdf</ref>

==Rationed Care==

Doctors have said they anticipate more people waiting in the waiting-rooms, more phone calls, people upset because they want to be seen now. Doctors will be overbooked. As the health care system brings in more and more patients, the system will be overwhelmed. ObamaCare will be a tremendous burden for doctors in the United States.

ObamaCare will shorten the amount of time Doctors have with each patient, and lengthen the amount of time patients will have to wait. Dr. Sreedhar Potarazu said that the current bill passed into law will create a scenario where the supply cannot meet the demand. Because the necessary health care reform needs are not included in ObamaCare, there are still no protections for physicians in the medical industry, and doctors are going into the profession to work harder to earn less.

There will be an oversight board where the government looks at what should and shouldn't be given to patients, regardless of medical need. There is going to be rationing of care, according to Dr. Sreedhar Potarazu. Doctors have agreed there will be "rationed care" under ObamaCare.<ref>[http://beta.video.foxbusiness.com/v/4115101/doctors-respond-to-health-care-reform/?playlist_id=87185 Doctors Respond to Health-Care Reform], FoxBusiness.com, March 18, 2010.</ref>

==Disinformation==

If private citizens have disagreements, discussions, and dissections of ObamaCare, the proposed expansion of federal debt and deficits through its planned regulation of the healthcare industry, whether its communicated through e-mail, websites, blogs, or even casual conversation the Obama administration has asked that these people be reported to the executive branch of the federal government.<ref>McCullough, K. (2009, August 6). [http://townhall.com/columnists/KevinMcCullough/2009/08/06/welcome_to_gestapo-care Welcome to Gestapo-Care]. ''TownHall.com''.</ref> To counter any discussions related to the repeal of ObamaCare, or that are against the implementation of ObamaCare which will in turn destroy jobs and create more taxpayer debt, a Web page at whitehouse.gov entitled "Reality Check" has claimed that the president's program "would be fully paid for over 10 years, and it would not add one penny to the deficit."<ref>[http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/faq Frequently Asked Questions About Health Insurance Reform]. Health Insurance Reform Reality Check. ''WhiteHouse.gov''.</ref>

The [[CBO]] is mandated to prepare cost estimates and to show how individual legislative proposals would change spending or revenue levels under current law.<ref>[ http://www.cbo.gov/aboutcbo/budgetprocess.shtml Overview]. ''Congressional Budget Office''.</ref> A July 15 2009 letter from the CBO made this assessment,
{{Cquote|Enacting the proposal would result in a net increase in the federal budget deficits of about $1.0 trillion over the 2010-2019 period."<ref>Elmendorf, D.W. (2009, June 15). [http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/103xx/doc10310/06-15-HealthChoicesAct.pdf Preliminary Analysis of Major Provisions Related to Health Insurance Coverage Under the Affordable Health Choices Act]. ''Congressional Budget Office''. U.S. Congress.</ref>}} However, deceptively, CBO analysis of the House and Senate versions of the health care reform bills show that they would reduce the federal budget deficit by $109 billion <ref>http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=421</ref> and $81 billion <ref>http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=387</ref> respectively.

In a 2010 report, HHS claimed a provision in the health-care law would extend the Medicare trust fund by 12 years. The Congressional Budget Office released a memo that said HHS’s math was more than a little off.

Health and Human Services Secretary [[Kathleen Sebelius]] appearing on Capitol Hill for questioning admitted to double-counting in the Obamacare budget. Rep. Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania said “The same dollar can’t be used twice. This is the largest of the many budget gimmicks Democrats used to claim Obamacare would reduce the deficit.” <ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/04/hhs-secretary-sebelius-admits-to-double-counting-in-obamacare-budget/ HHS Secretary Sebelius admits to double-counting in Obamacare, The Daily Caller, March 4, 2011]</ref>

== Obama Administration health care plan and liberal elitism ==
[[File:Arrogant obama.jpg|right|125px|thumbnail|[[Barack Obama]] ]]
''See also:'' [[Barack Obama and liberal elitism]] and [[Barack Obama and uncharitableness]]

In 2007, when Obama was running for the office of President of the United States, he promised Americans "health care that is as good as the health care that I have as a member of Congress."<ref>http://www.emaxhealth.com/10/18430.html</ref> However, recently when a newspaper reporter pressed Obama on whether he would commit to Americans having the same health care as congressmen, Obama repeatedly refused to commit to his previous promise of Americans having the same coverage as members of Congress.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvzLDb2igKM</ref> President Obama merely claimed Americans would have health care coverage that would "largely match up" with what members of Congress have.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvzLDb2igKM</ref> President Obama also stated he is constantly followed around by a personal physician.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvzLDb2igKM</ref>

The Obama administration's [[Liberal Elite|liberal elitism]] is not unusual when it comes to health care. For example, [[Belinda Stronach]], a former Member of the Canadian Parliament, chose to have a surgical treatment in the United States rather than be treated in Canada for her condition ([[Canada]] has a [[socialized medicine]] system of health care).<ref>http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2007/09/14/canadian-official-refuses-canadian-health-care/</ref>
[[File:MedSybolBlog.jpg|left|125px]]

Congressman [[John Fleming]] has offered a legislative amendment that would require United States congressmen and senators to take the same health care plan they try to force on others (under proposed legislation they are curiously exempt). Congressman Fleming is encouraging people to go to his website and sign his petition.<ref>http://fleming.house.gov/index.html</ref>

===Two-Tier Health Care System===
Socialist regimes reveal their true nature by the special treatment they give to their permanent ruling class; they deny such treatment for ordinary citizens of their country. The worst corruption in socialist regimes flows from that simple two-caste system. Obama’s medical takeover bill is a monstrosity in many ways, but the biggest danger comes from the separate treatment it reserves for the ruling left compared to us ordinary folks.<ref>As is true in all socialist countries, there will be one standard of health care for you and me — and then a higher standard for the ruling class. [http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obamacare-means-a-two-tier-health-care-system/ ObamaCare Means a Two-Tier Health Care System], by James Lewis at ''Pajamas Media'', March 9, 2010.</ref>

The first example of ObamaCare's creation of a two-tier health care system was seen as millions of hardworking Americans struggle to make ends meet and watch as their health care costs increase due to provisions in ObamaCare. Senate staffers planned to participate in a two-day orgy of back massages, organic food tastings and milk mustache photos as part of a "health fair" for the staffers, who enjoy some of the best health care in the country.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/08/senate-office-host-health-fair-covered-staffers/ Senate Office to Host Health Fair for Well-Covered Staffers], FoxNews.com, October 08, 2010.</ref> The Senate staffers will be treated to seated massages, herbal [[tea|teas]], polarity therapy, low-fat [[cheese]] samples and organic foods. A [[pharmacist]] and health coach will be available to speak to fair-goers about their medications, nutrition and healthy lifestyle questions. All of which is at the American taxpayers expense.

Less than one year after ObamaCare was signed into law, 111 [[unions]], companies, and organizations had received approval for Waiver of the Annual Limits Requirements of the PHS Act Section 2711.<ref>Scott Baker. [http://www.theblaze.com/stories/lots-of-unions-are-on-the-hidden-list-to-receive-obamacare-waivers/ Lots of Unions Are on the ‘Hidden’ List to Receive ObamaCare Waivers], ''[[The Blaze]]'', November 15, 2010.</ref><ref name=waivers>Applications for waivers from annual limit requirements: [http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/regulations/approved_applications_for_waiver.html Approved Applications for Waiver of the Annual Limits Requirements of the PHS Act Section 2711], (as of December 3, 2010).</ref><ref>When the American people learned that the congressmen who wrote the new healthcare law were exempt from it, questions regarding the alleged benefits of the new legislation were raised. Further proof that ObamaCare may not be all that it was touted to be can be found in the fact that 111 companies, including a number of unions, have been given waivers to be exempted from certain provisions of the law. [http://www.examiner.com/will-county-libertarian-in-chicago/government-health-care-is-not-law-for-everyone?cid=parsely#parsely Government Health Care is not law for everyone], by Steve Balich, Examiner.com, November 15, 2010.</ref><ref>Warner Todd Huston. [http://biggovernment.com/wthuston/2010/11/15/obamacare-waivers-prove-policy-is-a-jobs-killer-unions-benefit-most/ Obamacare Waivers Prove Policy is a Jobs Killer, Unions Benefit Most], biggovernment.com, November 15, 2010.</ref> By December 7, 2010, the list of unions, companies, and insurers who have used the HHS waiver as an escape to avoid the costly, destructive consequences of Obamacare for their members and employees grew from 111 to 222.<ref>[[Michelle Malkin]]. [http://michellemalkin.com/2010/12/07/obamacare-waiver-mania-continues-list-tops-222/ Obamacare Waiver-mania! continues: List tops 222], MichelleMalkin.com, December 7, 2010.</ref><ref name=waivers/> More than 50 unions have already received waivers.<ref>[[Rush Limbaugh]]. [http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_011711/content/01125114.guest.html Why We Must Repeal Obamacare], RushLimbaugh.com, January 17, 2011.</ref> Moreover, three [[Service Employees International Union]] (SEIU) local chapters, including the [[Chicago]] chapter, whose political action committee spent $27 million supporting Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election, have received waivers from a provision in the Obamacare law.<ref>Fred Lucas. [http://cnsnews.com/news/article/seiu-locals-including-chicago-chapter-wa Three SEIU Locals--Including Chicago Chapter--Waived From Obamacare Requirement], CNSnews.com, January 24, 2011.</ref>

===Treatment of older patients===
Some critics, including former Vice-Presidential hopeful [[Sarah Palin]], have accused Obama of planning on setting up "Death Panels" to judge the worthiness and "cost effectiveness" of keeping certain people alive, such as senior citizens. In spite of public outcry over death panels, the Obama administration is pressing forward to enact the same measures by bureaucratic regulations, called "end-of-life planning."<ref>Meredith Jessup. [http://www.theblaze.com/stories/return-of-death-panels-obama-to-enact-end-of-life-planning-for-medicare/ Return of ‘Death Panels’? Obama to Enact End-of-Life Planning for Medicare], ''[[The Blaze]]'', December 26, 2010.</ref> Quoting research from the [[British Medical Journal]], the [[Obama administration]] insists death panels are humane: "Advance care planning improves end-of-life care and patient and family satisfaction and reduces stress, anxiety and depression in surviving relatives."

This "end-of-life" care is apparently to be doled out like pork from a salt barrel from the 200 or so "Elderly Care Centers" nationwide that will distribute strictly rationed medication to those in need until such time as the "committee" considers the patient to be too old. 200 centers in the country amounts to about 4 per state on average, though California, Massachusetts and Iowa were able to grab more funding from the Obama administration through a combination of political dealings and judicial activism <ref>http://blogs.smartmoney.com/tax/2011/02/10/lights-camera-tax-scandal-iowa-trial-begins/</ref> The majority of Elderly Care Centers are located in urban areas of states; for example, the state of Kansas has only two Elderly Care Centers for their entire retired population and both are located in Topeka, far from the rural elderly who "need" government help the most. This may be a strategy to reduce the strain on the system by allowing a large portion of the elderly to die off "naturally," while still making a show of treating them in cities, where liberal voters tend to congregate.

There have already been deaths attributed to doctors exercising newly-granted authority from these extra-judicial decision making bodies. A young girl, in liberal California of all places, was told that her liver transplant was not "worth it," because she wouldn't live long enough to justify the value of the organ. Though public outcry forced the doctors to change their minds after ten days, but those ten days were enough to kill an innocent child. Another woman, a nurse in Texas, was denied treatment for her breast cancer, purportedly because she was in middle age and was not worth the "investment." <ref>http://dying.about.com/od/ethicsandchoices/a/death_panels.htm</ref>

Under Obamacare, in every state taxpayer dollars originally slated for caring for the elderly in our communities have been transferred to a "Community Health" slush fund run by federal government-appointed bureaucrats. The purpose of this fund is to allow unscrupulous doctors and insurance companies, who are the acknowledged source of our high health costs, to charge ridiculous amounts of money for basic services, without leaving a paper trail or even committing a (legal) crime.

==Polls==
Taken from an [[Associated Press|AP]] poll, on January 17, 2011, Kellyanne Conway, president of the polling company, inc./WomanTrend, pointed out that when asked if voters would favor a law "that would require every American to have health insurance, or pay money to the government as a penalty if they do not, unless the person is very poor," 59 percent are opposed.<ref>Katrina Trinko. [http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/257331/two-new-obamacare-polls-have-high-numbers-democrats-misleading-questions-katrina-trink# Two New Obamacare Polls Have High Numbers of Democrats, Misleading Questions], ''National Review'', January 17, 2011.</ref> {{Cquote|When they actually hear what the health care reform is, they’re opposed to it," Conway said.}}
One week after a federal district judge ruled in favor of 26 states and declared Obamacare to be unconstitutional, Rasmussen's poll of likely voters showed that Americans support its repeal by a margin of 21 percentage points (58 to 37 percent). Among [[independents]], the margin in support of repeal was even higher: 27 points (63 to 36 percent).<ref>[http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/new-rasmussen-poll-obamacare_541512.html New Rasmussen Poll on Obamacare], ''[[The Weekly Standard]]'', February 7, 2011.</ref> The pollsters also point out that many voters don't just want Obamacare repealed — they also want it replaced with a better system.

* On August 29, 2011, the ''[[Rasmussen Reports]]'' national telephone survey of Likely U.S. Voters showed that 57% at least somewhat favor repeal of the health care law, including 46% who Strongly Favor repeal. Thirty-seven percent (37%) at least somewhat oppose repeal, with 25% who are Strongly Opposed.<ref>Voters Express Stronger Enthusiasm for Health Care Repeal. [http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law Health Care Law], ''[[Rasmussen Reports]]'', August 29, 2011.</ref>

* According to the ''Kaiser Health Tracking'' [[poll]], as reported on August 30, 2011, 44% of Americans have an unfavorable view of ObamaCare. Only 39% of those surveyed have a favorable view of the law.<ref>Conn Carroll. [http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/poll-obamacare-support-all-time-low Poll: Obamacare support at all time low], ''The Washington Examiner'', August 30, 2011.</ref>

* According to a monthly poll from the ''Kaiser Family Foundation'', as reported by ''[[The Hill]]'' on October 28, 2011, 51 percent of respondents had an unfavorable view while only 34 percent had a favorable impression of ObamaCare.<ref>[http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/politics-elections/190399-healthcare-laws-popularity-hits-a-new-low-poll-says Healthcare law's popularity hits new low], ''[[The Hill]]'', October 28, 2011.</ref>

== See also ==
[[File:Dr Obama.jpg|right|150px]]
* [[Socialized Medicine]]
* [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]] (doctor organization which opposes ObamaCare)
* [[Accountable Care Organization]]
* [[Obamunism]]
* [[Barack Hussein Obama#Obama's Medical Administrator|Obama's Medicare/Medicaid Administrator]]
* [[Essay:47 million Americans without health insurance lie]]

== External links ==
*[http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf Full text of Obamacare, aka Affordable Healthcare Act]
*[http://www.healthcare.gov/news/brochures/info-for-small-businesses.pdf Official site info for small businesses; statement there will be penalties against employers]
*[http://www.castlibrary.com/free_books Three Days of Argument: Obamacare On Trial Audiobook] - Complete coverage of the arguments to the Supreme Court regarding Obamacare
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcBaSP31Be8 Know the TRUTH about the Government Health Care Bill H.R.3200- Key Points video]
*[http://www.aapsonline.org/obamacare-bill/ ObamaCare] by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvzLDb2igKM The Obama health care press conference: The Public Option]
*[http://www.cato.org/dailypodcast/podcast-archive.php?podcast_id=653 Collectivism and Obama, McCain], featuring David Boaz, [[CATO Institute]] Daily Podcast, June 10, 2008.
*[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_071510/content/01125107.guest.html White House Snaps Fingers and Triggers End of Private Insurance], [[Rush Limbaugh]] on how the Obama Administration just issued new rules requiring health insurance companies to provide free coverage.
*[[Fox News|FoxNews.com]]: [http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/01/19/taxpayer-calculator-health-care-repeal Taxpayer Calculator: ''Find Out How Much Health Care Law Is Costing YOU'']. To find out how much your taxes will increase because of ObamaCare, [http://www.foxnews.com/topics/health-care-bill-gross-cost-of-coverage-provisions CLICK HERE]. In addition to calculating your individual tax burden caused by the overall health care takeover, FoxNews.com has also broken down the bill into three main pieces: the [http://www.foxnews.com/topics/health-care-bill-gross-cost-of-exchange-subsidies-related-spending.htm gross cost of exchange subsidies and related spending], the [http://www.foxnews.com/topics/health-care-bill-gross-cost-of-medicaid-chip-outlays.htm cost of Medicaid and expense of the Children's Health Insurance Program], and the [http://www.foxnews.com/topics/healthcare-bill-gross-cost-of-small-employer-tax-credits.htm cost of small employer tax credits].
* http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/21/premiums-set-to-rise-this-year-in-run-up-to-obamacare-tax-on-insurance-industry/
* http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/01/memphis-based-medical-company-lays-off-100-blames-obama-care/
* http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/339456/obamacare-s-pressure-points-thomas-p-miller

{{Liberalism}}

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Totalitarianism]]

[[Category: Obama Administration]]
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Socialism]]
[[Category: Health]]

Hinduism

2013-11-25T20:13:23Z

JHunter: /* Hinduism and abortion */ added missing "if"

[[Image:Hinduism.jpg|left|Hinduism]]
'''Hinduism''' is the third largest religion in the world and is the oldest among major religions.<ref>The largest being [[Christianity]], [[Islam]], Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist, and Hinduism, in that order[http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html]</ref> Historians believe that it originated more than 5000 years ago.<ref>[http://hinduism.about.com/od/hinduism101/a/origin.htm Origin of Hinduism] (About.com)</ref> Hinduism is the first [[Dharmic religion]]. It is often referred to as "the religion of India;" about 800 million of the world's billion Hindus live in [[India]], so about 80 percent of Hindus are Indians.<ref>[http://www.censusindia.net/religiondata/Brief_analysis.pdf Census of India, religion data, brief analysis (PDF)]; "At the national level, of 1028 million population, 828 million (80.5 percent) have returned their religion as Hindus followed by 138 million (13.4 percent) as Muslims and 24 millions (2.3 percent) Christians. 19 million (1.9 percent) persons follow Sikh religion; 8 million (0.8 percent) are Buddhists and 4.2 million (0.4 percent) are Jains as per the 2001 Census. In addition to these, 6.6 million belong to ‘Other Religions and Persuasions’ including tribal religions which are not part of the six main religions stated above. About seven lakh (or 0.7 million) persons have not stated their religion."</ref>
According to a recent American survey, Hindus are the best educated and among the richest religious groups in the [[United States]].<ref>Hanerjee, Neela, [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/us/25cnd-religion.html?ei=5124&en=1f44cce06fd2c02a&ex=1361682000&adxnnl=1&partner=digg&exprod=digg&adxnnlx=1204020358-3HkVoV4zxeYh9vTOw6Tydw Americans Change Faiths at Rising Rate, Report Finds], New York Times, 25th February, 2008.</ref>
[[Image:Hinduism..jpg|240px|right|Shiva the Cosmic Dancer]]
Hindus believe in [[reincarnation]] and eventual communion with [[Brahman]] (God) as well as respect for all life forms. Their holy writings are known as the [[Vedas]]. Hindus outline the four goals of various humans (purusharthas) as: dharma (righteousness), artha (material success), kama (love/pleasure), and moksha (release from reincarnation/reunification with Brahman); above all four of these, in certain Hindu schools, is the goal of pure Love of God.

== Definition by law ==

In 1966, the Supreme Court of [[India]] defined what Hinduism is for legal purposes:

1. Belief in the authority of the Vedas (an ancient collection of hymns to the gods, written in Sanskrit). The oldest collection of hymns in the Vedas is the Rig Veda, which was written between 1800 and 1300 B.C. The greatest Veda hymn is the “Bhagavat Gita,” a section in the Mahabharata concerning life’s never-ending spiritual journey towards perfection. Bhagavat Geeta is rendered as a dialogue between Shri [[Krishna]] (incarnation of [[Vishnu]]) and Arjuna (the great archer) in the middle of the battlefield.

2. Spirit of tolerance and willingness to understand and respect an opponent’s view.

3. Belief in world rhythms: long periods of creation, maintenance and dissolution follow each other in endless succession.

4. Belief in reincarnation (rebirth) and preexistence.

5. Belief that there are many ways to salvation.

6. Unlike most other religions, Hinduism is not defined by a specific set of philosophical concepts.

7. Belief in one god. Contrary to popular belief, Hinduism is not a [[polytheism|polytheistic]] religion. The Vedas, the primary Hindu holy scriptures states that there is only one [[God]] but can manifest in many forms. This is the reason why there are many deities. A common example used to explain this is that an individual can be called different names depending on the relationship has with another. A man can be a son to his parents, a nephew to his uncle, a father to his son, and a husband to his wife all at the same time. None of these different relationships suggest multiple people but rather different aspects of one person. The same is applied to God in Hinduism, which has no form and is infinite. Hindus may call God, Paratman (Supreme Soul), Brahmana (Eternal Spirit), or Ishvara (Supreme Lord). Deities have various names but represent aspects of God that manifest in the world. For example [[Agni]] (fire, Divine spark), Vayu (wind, or breath which could mean life force, [[Indra]] (in mythology king of gods but also refers to the senses such as vision, hearing, touch, taste), and [[Lakshmi]] (fortune).

8. Secular multiplicity and accommodating flexibility in spiritual practices.

Relations between Hinduism and Christianity have also been shaped by unequal balances of political power and cultural influence. Although communities of Christians have lived in South India since the middle of the 1st millennium, the great expansion of Indian Christianity followed the efforts of missionaries working under the protection of the British colonial government. <ref> [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-261549/Hinduism Hinduism and Christianity] Encyclopædia Britannica. </ref>

Some state governments such as Gujrat, Madhya Pradesh have passed anti-conversion laws, attempting to prevent Hindus from being forced or coerced into converting to other religions such as [[Islam]] and [[Christianity]].<ref>[http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2003/24470.htm India: International Religious Freedom Report 2003] (U.S. Department of State)</ref>

For more on Hinduism, see [[World History Lecture Three]].

==Believer?==
In Hinduism, according to one classification, believers are categorized into four distinct categories, acording to their beliefs.
* Advaita Astika: Believer of God & Believer of Scripture
* Advaita Nastika: Believer of God & Non-believer of Scripture
* Dvaita Astika: Non-believer of God & Believer of Scripture
* Dvaita Nastika: Non-believer of God & Non-believer of Scripture

==Issues==
===Sati===
Sati is an old practice, it's practice is forbidden by the Hindu scriptures in Kali Yuga, the present age.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://hinduism.iskcon.org/lifestyle/903.htm |title= Heart of Hinduism Other Social Issues |date= |accessdate=2013-09-13}}</ref> In this practice the widow was immolated alive on her husband's funeral pyre, allthough the practice was made as per the agreement of the widow. However during the islamic invasion of Indian subcontinent, this practice revived, as rapes, abduction were normally carried out by Islamic invaders.<ref>"A Place at the Multicultural Table: The Development of an American Hinduism" by Prema Kurien, p. 171</ref><ref>"The Danger of Gender: Caste, Class and Gender in Contemporary Indian Women's Writing" by Clara Nubile, p.9</ref> To this day, the practice remains illegal in India.

===Caste system===
Caste system is neither unique to Indian society or limited, it has been prevalent in many parts of world, such as "Al-Akhdam" of Yemen, "Songbun" of North Korea, and others.

It's apart from religion, but closer to practical life. The book ''Manusmriti'' texts contains system "caste by profession" or ''varna'' system. Traditionally Hindu society is divided into four castes:
*''Brahmin'' (the highest caste)
*''Kshatriya'' (the warrior or ruling class)
*''Vaishya'' (merchants)
*''Shudra'' (unskilled laborers and servants)

Originally, caste was determined by profession, and could be changed by changing career.<ref>[http://western-hindu.org/2008/01/27/the-caste-system/ The Caste System]</ref> With the start of British colonization, caste system established by british and caste became defined by birth.<ref>de Zwart, Frank (July 2000). "The Logic of Affirmative Action: Caste, Class and Quotas in India". Acta Sociologica 43 (3): 235–249.</ref>

''Shudras'' were the lowest caste and were denied of many rights in past. Apart from these four main castes, there was a new addition in the modern distortion of the caste system, as the lowest caste called the ''Dalit'' (Untouchables).<ref>[http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/living/caste.shtml The caste system] ''BBC''</ref> Historically these ''dalits'' are the victims of discrimination by higher castes, to this day.<ref>[http://indianchristians.in/news/content/view/1954/44/ Dalits face discrimination in southern Tamil Nadu] ''All India Christian Council''</ref><ref>[http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2007/02/13/india15303.htm India: ‘Hidden Apartheid’ of Discrimination Against Dalits] ''[[Human Rights Watch]]''</ref> Despite this, there has been large amount appreciation towards the caste system, especially because it differed from the racial system such as ''casta'' of Spain, admirers includes the notable personalities such as Annie Besant, P.D. Ouspensky, Pandurang Shastri Athavale and Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan. Friedrich Nietzsche is noted to have said "Close the Bible and open the Manu Smriti."<ref>Friedrich Nietzsche, ''The Will to Power,'' vol. 1.</ref>

==Hinduism and abortion==
The teachings of Hinduism exact non-violence. Hinduism is generally opposed to [[abortion]] except if the life of the mother is at risk.<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/hinduethics/abortion_1.shtml</ref>

==See Also==
* [[Dharma]]
* [[Hinduism and evolution]]

== External links ==
* [http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Philosophy-Hinduism-Hindu.htm Hindu Religion]
* [http://western-hindu.org/2008/01/27/the-caste-system/ The Caste System]
* [http://ethics.wikia.com/wiki/Param_Atma Parmatma]

==Further reading==
* Johnson, W. J. ''A Dictionary of Hinduism'' (2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Dictionary-Hinduism-W-J-Johnson/dp/0198610254/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1238980666&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Knott, Kim. ''Hinduism: A Very Short Introduction'' (2000) [http://www.questia.com/read/62971675?title=Hinduism%3a%20A%20Very%20Short%20Introduction online edition]
* Shattuck, Cybelle. ''Hinduism'' (1999) [http://www.questia.com/read/103395975?title=Hinduism online edition]
* Sullivan, Bruce M. ''Historical Dictionary of Hinduism'' (1997)
* Werner, Karel. ''A Popular Dictionary of Hinduism'' (1997) [http://www.amazon.com/Popular-Dictionary-Hinduism-Dictionaries-Religion/dp/0700710493/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1238980666&sr=1-3 excerpt and text search]
* Zaehner, R. C. ''Hinduism'' (1966) [http://www.questia.com/read/23180604?title=Hinduism online edition]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Hinduism| ]]
[[Category:Dharmic Religions]]
[[Category:India]]
[[category:Indian History]]

Scientism

2013-11-20T22:05:40Z

JHunter: nevermind, it was right before.

'''Scientism''' is the belief that the [[scientific method]] has no (or few) limits and can successfully be applied to almost all aspects of life, and provides an explanation for everything. It is essentially a religion where its followers (Scientists) worship [[science]] its rituals, and its results.<ref>Ashgate Science and Religion Series</ref> According to [[Discovery Institute]] scientism is an effort to use the methods of science to explain and control every part of human life. [[C.S. Lewis]] was sceptical and highly critical of scientism as an ideology which in his view was confused with science and which tried to [[Reductionism|reduce]] everything that we can learn scientifically to materialistic blind undirected causes.<ref>{{cite web |title=The Magician's Twin: C.S. Lewis and the Case against Scientism|publisher=DiscoveryInstitute|date= 18 Nov 2012|pages=02min:20sec|url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPeyJvXU68k&list=PLF3F6DFC4CC901818|accessdate=27-April-2013}}</ref>

== Scientism and atheism ==
Scientism has generally had a close relationship with atheism, as atheism and Scientism support each other. Followers of Scientism do not believe in God and therefore use atheism as the base of their religion, and atheists use [[pseudoscience]] to support their claims, as well as as evidence against God and the [[Bible]].<ref>http://sntjohnny.com/front/scientism-the-atheists-religion-of-faith/477.html</ref>

== Scientism and pseudoscience ==
Since Scientists have an agenda to use "science" to support their denial of God, their techniques usually rely on [[pseudoscience]]. For example, the claim to know that God exists, despite the fact that it is technically scientifically impossible to disprove anything (i.e. negative proofs are impossible). Despite this, they continue to deny the existence of God without any real scientific proof.<ref>http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/03/1174</ref>

== Science as a religion ==
Scientism is the religion of worshiping science as a source of explanations about the universe. It is based on their faith that science will provide answers because Scientists have a declared "objective" point of view.<ref>http://www.enformy.com/Religion_of_Scientism.htm</ref>

Believers of Scientism deny the existence of God, and instead worship pseudoscientific methods. They seek to use what they claim to be as "science" to replace God as the source for infinite knowledge, and the foundation of society. Scientists generally think of themselves as being Gods while practicing their scientific rituals, because they think they are coming up with answers. However, they really just pretend that they are God to feel superior to the faithful.

Worshipers of Scientism also believe that science should replace traditional [[morality]], so that they can do whatever they want as long as it is dictated by "science".<ref>http://www.crosswalk.com/news/exposing-the-religion-of-scientism-11598780.html</ref>

== Reference ==
{{reflist|2}}

== See Also ==
*[[Epistemology]]
*[[Postmodern science]]

== External links ==
* [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientism Scientism] (Merriam Webster Online Dictionary).
* [http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/sciism-body.html Scientism] (American Public Broadcasting Service).
* [http://www.philosophyetc.net/2007/08/scientism.html Scientism] (Philosophy, etc.)
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPeyJvXU68k&list=PLF3F6DFC4CC901818 The Magician's Twin: C.S. Lewis and the Case against Scientism] Featured Video by Discovery Institute
[[category:Methodology of Science]]
[[category:religion]]
[[category:science]]
[[category:pseudoscience]]

Scientism

2013-11-20T22:01:20Z

JHunter: spelling

Kidney

2013-11-19T22:32:57Z

JHunter: expanded a bit

'''Kidneys''' are bean-shaped organs, each about the size of a fist. They are located near the middle of the back, just below the rib cage. The kidneys are sophisticated reprocessing machines. Every day, the kidneys process about 200 quarts of [[blood]] to sift out about 2 quarts of waste products and extra water. The waste and extra water become [[urine]], which flows to the [[bladder]] through tubes called [[ureter]]s.<ref>[http://kidney.niddk.nih.gov/kudiseases/pubs/yourkidneys/ "Your Kidneys and How They Work"]</ref>

==Structure and Function==

The primary functions of the kidneys are osmoregulation and filtration. That is, the kidneys filter small molecules and ions from the blood and support organismal [[homeostasis]] by balancing the concentration of water and salts in the bloodstream. The kidneys also secrete hormones which regulate things like thirst and blood pressure.

Each kidney is composed of ~1,000,000 functional filter structures called [[nephron|nephrons]]. Each nephron contains a filter head ([[glomerulus]]) with re-absorptive tubules draining into a collecting duct.

Blood passing through the capillaries in the glomerulus passes over a sieve formed by specialized cells called ''podocytes''. The filtrate which passes through the sieve then travels through the tubules where water and salts still needed by the body are reabsorbed into the bloodstream, concentrating the urine. The urine then passes into the collecting duct system where it is further concentrated as more water is reabsorbed. Finally, the urine passes through a papillary duct into the renal calyces, then into the pyelum and out through the ureter and into the bladder.

The re-absorptive machinery in the kidneys is so efficient that only 1 liter of urine is produced for every ~100 liters of primary filtrate produced in the glomerulus. This efficiency is important physiologically because it allows the body to conserve water and salts. [[Diabetes insipidus]] is a disease state in which the ability of the kidneys to reabsorb water is somehow compromised, usually due to a deficiency in the hormone [[vasopressin]] (AVP).

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Anatomy]]

RNA

2013-05-04T18:53:19Z

JHunter:

'''Ribonucleic acid''' (RNA) is a family of biomolecules which perform several essential functions within all cells. As a type of nucleic acid, RNA is structurally and chemically very similar to [[DNA]]; the two largest differences being that the RNA backbone contains ribose instead of 2'-deoxyribose and uses [[uracil]] instead of [[thymine]] as one of its four bases<ref>Nelson & Cox. (2008). ''Principles of biochemistry''.</ref>.

Unlike DNA, which is primarily used as a template for [[transcription]], RNA molecules perform a diverse set of functions within the cell. Subsets of RNA are generally classified by their function, which can range from acting as the template for [[translation|protein synthesis]] ("messenger RNA" or "[[mRNA]]") to performing [[ribozyme|enzymatic functions]]. Additionally, many viruses use RNA instead of DNA as their genetic material (e.g. [[retrovirus|retroviruses]]).

As with DNA, RNAs can exist in single-stranded (annotated "ssRNA") or double-stranded ("dsRNA") forms; however, the vast majority of cellular RNAs are single-stranded. dsRNAs generally function in post-transcriptional [[gene regulation]] or as viral genetic material. Targeted degradation of dsRNAs is a major intracellular defence mechanism against viruses<ref>Alberts et al. (2008). ''Molecular biology of the cell''.</ref><ref>Weaver, Robert F. ''Molecular Biology''. 4th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2008.</ref>.

==Structure==

Every nucleotide of RNA consists of a ribose molecule with a nitrogenous base attached to its 1' carbon and a phosphate group attached to its 5' carbon. Individual RNA nucleotides are linked by a [[phosphodiester bond]] between the 3' carbon of one nucleotide's ribose and the 5' carbon on the next.

The four nitrogenous bases used in RNA are [[adenine]], [[guanine]], [[cytosine]], and [[uracil]]. Adenine and guanine are the ''purine'' bases, cytosine and uracil are the ''pyrimidine'' bases. Like in DNA, these bases can hybridize through [[hydrogen bond|hydrogen bonds]]; adenine hybridizes with uracil and guanine hybridizes cytosine.

Hybridization of nucleotides within RNA molecules allows for the formation of ''secondary structures'' such as RNA hairpins, these secondary structures give RNA molecules an overall ''tertiary structure'' which is often essential for the RNA to perform its function. Additionally, RNAs can hybridize through base pairing with other RNAs or with complementary DNA sequences.

==Function==

RNA performs a wide variety of functions within the cell. Types of RNA are specified by the functions that they perform. More than 21 functional classes of RNA have been identified, the most common types are described below.

===mRNA===

''Messenger RNAs'' ([[mRNA]]) are the template molecules which are ''translated'' into [[protein|proteins]] by [[ribosome|ribosomes]]. They are generally synthesized by [[transcription]] of a DNA template (a [[gene]]) by [[RNA polymerase]], although some viral mRNAs are directly transcribed from an RNA template.

In [[eukaryote|eukaryotes]], nascent RNA transcripts must generally be processed from ''pre-mRNA'' into mature mRNA, via ''RNA processing'', before they are exported from the nucleus to be translated into proteins.

===rRNA===

''Ribosomal RNAs'' ([[rRNA]]) are the RNA molecules that form a major component of the [[ribosome|ribosomes]]. There are three rRNAs in [[prokaryote|prokaryotes]] and four rRNAs in [[eukaryote|eukaryotes]] and [[archaea|archaeans]].

The genes encoding rRNAs are among the most highly conserved (low level of sequence variance between individuals and species) genes in any genome. As such, rRNA sequences are often used to generate very precise phylogenetic trees.

The 28S rRNA (23S rRNA in prokaryotes) is a [[ribozyme]], and is responsible for the aminoacyltransferase (polypeptide-lengthening) activity of the ribosome.

===tRNA===

''Transfer RNAs'' ([[tRNA]]) are the ''adapter molecules'' that recognize ''codons'' during translation and bring specific [[amino acids]] to the [[ribosome]] to be added to the growing [[protein|polypeptide]] chain.

The "cloverleaf" tertiary structure of tRNAs is a common textbook example of the link between RNA structure and function.

===microRNA===

''Micro RNAs'' ([[microRNA]])are short RNA molecules involved in post-transcriptional [[gene regulation]]. microRNAs work by binding to complementary sequences on target mRNAs; thus targeting the mRNA for degradation via the [[RISC|RNA-induced silencing complex]] or, less commonly, blocking translation of the mRNA by [[steric hindrance|steric]] (mechanical) hindrance.

In their mature, functional form, microRNA molecules are 20 to 24 nucleotides long. This length allows for microRNAs to have a very high degree of target specificity (some microRNAs may only have a single target mRNA).

Because the mechanics of [[RNA polymerase]] require a minimum transcript length of about 50-100 nucleotides, precursor microRNAs are at least 80 nucleotides long (most are longer). As such, several different microRNAs are usually derived from a single precursor transcript.

Together with siRNAs, microRNAs are a major component of ''gene regulatory networks'', which allow the cell to rapidly and efficiently respond to environmental stimuli.

===siRNA===

''Short interfering RNAs'' ([[siRNA]]) are short (~21 base pairs), double-stranded RNA molecules which function in a manner similar to microRNAs (described above).

siRNAs are commonly used in research for targeted gene knockdown (blocking the expression of a specific gene) and they are also used in several gene therapies.

===snRNA===

''Small nuclear RNAs'' ([[snRNA]]) are involved in several different processes that occur within the nucleus, notably [[RNA splicing]] and the regulation of certain [[transcription factor|transcription factors]]. They generally function in complexes with specific proteins; these snRNA and protein complexes are called ''small nuclear ribonucleoproteins'' ("snRNPs", colloquially pronounced "snurps").

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

Archaea

2013-05-04T18:51:26Z

JHunter: categories

'''Archaea''' is one of the three [[Domain (biology)|domains]] of life (the other two being [[bacteria]] and [[eukaryote|eukarya]]). Together with bacteria, it is one of the two [[prokaryote|prokaryotic]] domains of life; meaning that they lack discrete membrane-bound organelles. It was established as a separate domain from bacteria after biochemical and genetic studies revealed that archaeans formed a genetically distinct group with distinctive biochemistry (notably in the lipid composition of their cell membranes) and metabolic pathways.<ref>http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/archaea/archaea.html</ref>

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Microbiology]]
[[Category:Biology]]

Archaea

2013-05-04T18:50:29Z

JHunter:

Kidney

2013-05-04T18:43:01Z

JHunter: expanded article a bit, debating with myself about adding a section on renal diseases...

'''Kidneys''' are bean-shaped organs, each about the size of a fist. They are located near the middle of the back, just below the rib cage. The kidneys are sophisticated reprocessing machines. Every day, the kidneys process about 200 quarts of [[blood]] to sift out about 2 quarts of waste products and extra water. The waste and extra water become [[urine]], which flows to the [[bladder]] through tubes called [[ureter]]s.<ref>[http://kidney.niddk.nih.gov/kudiseases/pubs/yourkidneys/ "Your Kidneys and How They Work"]</ref>

==Structure and Function==

The primary functions of the kidneys are ''osmoregulation'' and filtration. That is, the kidneys filter small molecules and ions from the blood and support organismal [[homeostasis]] by balancing the concentration of water and salts in the bloodstream. The kidneys also secrete hormones which regulate things like thirst and blood pressure.

Each kidney is composed of ~1,000,000 functional filter structures called [[nephron|nephrons]]. Each nephron contains a filter head ([[glomerulus]]) with re-absorptive tubules draining into a collecting duct.

Blood passing through the capillaries in the glomerulus passes over a sieve formed by specialized cells called ''podocytes''. The filtrate which passes through the sieve then travels through the tubules where water and salts still needed by the body are reabsorbed into the bloodstream, concentrating the urine. The urine then passes into the collecting duct system where it is further concentrated. Finally, the urine passes through a papillary duct into the renal calyces, then into the pyelum and out through the ureter.

The re-absorptive machinery in the kidneys is so efficient that only 1 liter of urine is produced for every ~100 liters of primary filtrate produced in the glomerulus.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Anatomy]]

Colon

2013-04-24T18:54:54Z

JHunter:

'''Colon''' is a term with numerous meanings.

1. A '''colon''' is a punctuation mark consisting of two full stops arranged vertically - ''':''' A colon is used to introduce a list.

2. The [[large intestine|'''colon''']] is part of the [[digestive system]], the further end of the lower [[intestine]]. It removes water and salts from material passing through the digestive system, which is subsequently expelled from the body.

3. '''Colon''' (pronounced coh LOHN) is a province and city of [[Panama]], located near the [[Atlantic]] terminus of the [[Panama Canal]].

[[Category:Disambiguation Pages]]

Talk:Homosexuality

2013-04-23T03:22:54Z

JHunter: /* Answering a question - sort of */

[[Talk:homosexuality/archive_Set1|Archives]]

== Answering a question - sort of ==
''August, by the way, what do you think of Conservapedia homosexuality article in terms of the factual evidence it presents?''

It may present factual evidence. But it is practically unreadable: One can only hope that Aschlafly will take this as an example for his upcoming course in [[Persuasive Writing]] and helps to improve it. Every time I try to read it, I stumble upon so many atrocities that I have to stop. But it has its magic - for me as a foreigner it highlights the many traps in which I often find myself caught!

{|class="wikitable"
|'''Homosexuality''' is the condition of "sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex."
|no problem with this sentence
|-
|
'''Theories on how people become homosexual''' [[Causes of Homosexuality|Homosexuality has a number of causal factors]] that influence its ultimate origination in individuals; these factors will be addressed shortly. In addition, homosexuality has a variety of effects on individuals and [[society]] at large which will be subsequently elaborated on. Next, some of the historical events, [[Religion|religious]] matters, and [[law|legal]] matters relating to homosexuality will also be covered. Finally, the latter part of the 20th century has seen a [[Homosexuality Research|large body of research]] on the [[Causes of Homosexuality|causes]] and effects of homosexuality; this will also be studied.
|''these factors will be addressed shortly'' - ''will also be covered'' - ''this will also be studied'': Three times we are told that something is explained in the future. One time would be enough. And besides a repetition of actions, we see the same words popping up in such a short section: ''also'', ''matter'', ''factor'', ''effect'', ''individual'' and naturally ''homosexuality''.
|-
|
'''Biblical statements concerning homosexuality and secularism/homosexuality''' Below are some [[Bible]] verses that condemn homosexuality: However, the bible cannot be interpreted literally, if this was the case then rebellious children would be killed: Deuteronomy 21:18-21. Also, Women may not speak in church: Cor 14:33-36. The bible is not a collection of dogmatic and strict rules, it is a book of God that promotes compassion, faith in God, truth, and love.
* [[Leviticus]] 18:22 - You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.
* [[Leviticus]] 20:13 - If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their [[blood]] guiltiness is upon them.
* [[Romans]] 1:26-27 - For this reason [[God]] gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
* [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=I%20Corinthians%206:9;&version=31; I Corinthians 6:9] (NIV) - Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
*[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=I%20Timothy%201:8-11;&version=49; I Timothy 1:8-11 (NASB)] - "But we know that the [[Mosaic Law|Law]] is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and [[sin|sinners]], for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious [[gospel]] of the blessed [[God]], with which I have been entrusted."
|
*Bible or bible?
*Verses should be quoted in parentheses - the abundance of colons is irritating (especially when more than two sentences are linked in this way).
*''Also, Women [sic] may not speak in church'': ''also'' doesn't seem to be the right word to show that you don't subscribe to this sentence!
*The whole section is unclear, you should have divided it into two parts, one for the Old, the other for the New Testament!
*You should stick to one translation, NASB '''or''' NIV.
|}

Generally I don't criticize others for their writing: As I'm not a native speaker this could be seen as presumptuous (you like it when someone uses this word self-mockingly, don't you?) But here, so many flaws are obvious to me that I've to ask myself what I've missed because of my lack of knowledge!

I'm sure that I committed many of the atrocities of which I accuse you in my comments (even in this one) - but I'm not writing the flagship-articles in this encyclopedia. And my errors can be corrected easily: obviously the articles to which I contribute aren't locked.

I hope that my comments help you to improve your article.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:35, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::Regarding the flaws in this article and regular users not being able to edit it, that's the trouble with attempting to construct any reference or resource based off of a pre-formed ideology; a certain level of (rather blatantly undemocratic) censorship must be practiced in order to keep the project in line with its ideological goals.

::Certainly anybody with any significant experience dealing with gay friends/family members/co-workers/classmates/neighbors/employees can cite several fundamental flaws with this article and many of the other articles on conservapedia that relate to homosexuality. By rejecting mainstream psychological, biological, sociological, and anthropological consensus as resulting from the "liberal bias in academia" (which, trust me, does not actually exist), these articles must rely on fringe sources and exaggerated stereotypes.

::For instance, while gay and bisexual men do, on average, have a '''slightly''' higher number of lifetime sexual partners than straight men, the numbers are not nearly as high as many of the sources cited on Conservapedia claim them to be. For instance, in the United States the mean number of lifetime sexual partners for heterosexual males is pretty consistently estimated to be around 7 (this number does not change much across demographics--even evangelical Christian males average 7 partners in their lifetimes). Among MSM (the academic term for gay and bisexual men) in the United States, the average lifetime number of sexual partners ranges between 9 and 12 (depending on the conditions of the study). There are outliers in both groups, straight men reporting more than 100 lifetime sexual partners and MSM reporting similar statistics, but the relative incidence of this is roughly congruent between both groups. Assuming ~50 years of sexual activity for the average male over his lifetime (another, fairly consistent statistic), even at the high end, this means that MSM have one additional sexual partner '''per decade''' when compared to straight men. In light of the facts, the assertion that gay men are "dangerously promiscuous" is patently ridiculous.

::Finally, these articles all overlook the occurrence and cultural significance of MSM in history and non-Western cultures. I say MSM here because "homosexuality" is a rather recent Western cultural concept. In India, for instance, the "hijra" are a population that have existed for ''at least'' two thousand years. Hijra are biologically male, although some prefer to identify themselves as female (and, for them, the western term "transgender" may be the closest equivalent), but they constitute a "third sex" that conventionally takes the passive role in physical relations with nominally straight males. Additionally, the Hijra have an essential ceremonial function in many Hindu traditions (especially in northern India and in Bangladesh), and have historically been accepted as respected members of their communities. By Western standards, straight males who form physical relationships with hijra would be viewed as bisexual or homosexual. Another similar, and often cited, example is the "berdache" in the Zuni culture (many other Native American tribes have an equivalent)--these are men who occupy a social role that is a mix between the traditional male and female roles. Such people were often historically allowed to marry men occupying the traditional male role, and were often (but not always) accepted as important members of their communities. As another example, in early Christian societies (although it was predominantly a Byzantine phenomenon), ἀδελφοποίησις (literally, "brother making") has been interpreted as a form of consecrated same-sex union (this interpretation is, admittedly, somewhat controversial, but the academic consensus is that many of these unions were indeed romantic in nature).

::I know that this is a rather long argument for a talk page, so I am going to end it here. My general points are that homosexuality is a ubiquitous phenomenon in human societies and that many gay stereotypes that are thrown around in conservative political discourse are not firmly grounded in fact. In my opinion, the conservative movement is better served by focusing on political values, such as individual liberty and economic sustainability, than attacking the individual liberties (or very existence of) a small minority of people. I am aware that this an unpopular notion among social conservatives, but there are many more significant issues facing the American people at this time (e.g. unemployment) than Tim and Larry up the street deciding to start a family. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 19:09, 13 January 2012 (EST)

Oops, my bad. I didn't mean to revert the talk page. Anybody know how to put it back?--[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 23:22, 22 April 2013 (EDT)

Talk:Homosexuality

2013-04-23T03:21:21Z

JHunter:

Homosexual rights advocacy

2013-04-18T03:31:18Z

JHunter: /* Ludicrous arguments */

{{Homosexuality}}
The '''gay rights''' movement seeks to elevate [[homosexuality]] to the same level of social and political respectability as heterosexual relationships.

The gay rights movement seeks to remove the stigma of homosexuality by arguing that either,
# Homosexuality is an immutable trait, and discriminating against immutable traits is wrong (cf. race discrimination), or,
# Homosexuality, if not immutable, is highly correlated with personality, and discriminating against such deeply rooted notions of self is wrong, as well (cf. religious intolerance).
# Homosexuality is perfectly normal and should be respected, despite God's laws against it in the Bible.

Gay rights are a favored topic of [[liberals]], and are based on [[moral relativity]], the idea that there is no absolute Right or Wrong.

==Ludicrous arguments==

Homosexuality advocates claim that desire for same-sex fornication is innate. Furthermore, two prominent scientists (both homosexual men, so unlikely to be biased against the cause) both cite [[epigenetics|factors other than genetics]] in the development of homosexual desires.{{citation needed}}

==History==
[[Harry Hay]] is regarded as the father of the modern gay liberation movement. As a [[Communist Party of the United States]] (CPUSA) organizer, he turned out "essays, position papers, critical studies, and manifestos concerning what it means to be gay in the world." <ref> [http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A269_0_2_0_C/ Red Roots Of Gay Movement], Cliff Kincaid, Accuracy in Media, September 10, 2003. </ref>

The first step Hay took in organizing the gay rights movement was to recommend to the CPUSA that he be expelled. In
light of his 18 years of service to the party <ref>[http://www.sojournertruth.net/ipp.html#i In Partial Payment Class Struggle, Sexuality and Gay Liberation (1978)], by A. Rausch. Retrieved from ''Urgent Tasks: [[Leftist|Journal of the Revolutionary Left]]'', Sojourner Truth Organization Digital Archive , 10 May 2007. </ref> they released him as “a security risk but a life-long friend of the people.” The early leadership of the Foundation shaped the organization to reflect the cell structure of the Communist Party, in which "secrecy, hierarchical structures, and centralized leadership predominated." <ref>John D'Emilio, ''Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities: The Making of a Homosexual Minority in the United States'' (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983), quoted in Martin Meeker, Behind the Mask of Respectability, ''Journal of the History of Sexuality'', (2001) 78-116. </ref>
Hay and his fellow gay rights activists began circulating the [[USSR]] and the East European Communist parties sponsored anti-war [[Stockholm Peace petition]] against the [[Korean War]] <ref>[http://www.kimsoft.com/2000/germberia.htm New Russian Evidence on the Korean War Biological Warfare Allegations: Background and Analysis,]Milton Leitenberg, Cold War International History Project, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. </ref> at a gay beach in Los Angeles. The first months produced hundreds of members.

Amid growing public focus on gays and lesbians, 91 homosexuals were found to be employed in the [[U.S. State Department]]. Congressional investigators discovered homosexuals employed in 36 of 53 branches of Government, as well as in the armed forces. Between Jan. 1, 1947 and April 1950, 4,954 cases had come to light among some three and a half million people in Government service. Most were in the armed services. 574 cases were found involving civilian Government employees; in all the other cases the accused had either quit, been cleared or fired. The investigators found the greatest batch of civilian cases—143—in the U.S. State Department. State had cleared or gotten rid of all but a dozen whose cases were still pending. The Veterans Administration was found to have 101 cases. Others included the Atomic Energy Commission, 8; EGA, 27; Congress' legislative agencies (Library of Congress, congressional employees, etc.), 19. One Senator remarked, "It follows that if blackmailers can extort money from a homosexual under threat of disclosure, [[espionage]] agents can use the same type of pressure to extort confidential information." <ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,859060,00.html Object Lesson], ''TIME magazine'', Dec. 25, 1950.</ref>

The [[Human Rights Campaign]] referred to Hay as "founder and architect of the modern movement for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender rights" and "Harry was one of the first to realize that the dream of equality for our community could be attained through visibility and activism". <ref>[http://www.hrc.org/Content/ContentGroups/News_Releases/20021/HRC_Mourns_the_Death_of_Gay_Rights_Pioneer_Harry_Hay.htm Human Rights Campaign Mourns the Death of Gay Rights Pioneer Harry Hay], Press Release, Oct. 24, 2002.</ref> Hay not only promoted homosexual rights, he actively campaigned for the "rights" of pedophiles. ''The Boston Phoenix'' noted that nowhere was this more evident than in Hay's persistent support of the right of the North American Man-Boy Love Association, [[NAMBLA]], to march in gay-pride parades. <ref>''The Boston Phoenix'', [http://bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/documents/02511115.htm The real Harry Hay], Michael Bronski, October 31 - November 7, 2002. </ref> NAMBLA maintains a website with a body of Hay's work and a tribute to Harry Hay on its homepage. The Human Rights Campaign and other gay rights organizations, while revering Hay for his contributions to gay rights, do not support NAMBLA or communism.

== Homosexual Rights Timeline ==

* Henry Gerber starts Society for Human Rights under a State of Illinois charter for a non-profit organization for people with "mental abnormalities" on December 25, 1924. Several issues of ''Friendship and Freedom'', the first American publication for homosexuals were printed but the organization was shut down by Chicago police. Gerber was arrested but not convicted of any crime. As a result of his efforts, Gerber lost his job as a post office clerk, his life savings, and found himself abandoned by his friends. <ref> http://www.gayhistory.com/rev2/factfiles/ff1924.htm </ref>

* [[Alfred Kinsey]] publishes ''Sexual Behavior in the Human Male'' in 1948, allegedly the first scientific body of work that examined the subject of homosexuality. Mainstream publications started printing their opinions about this formerly taboo subject. <ref> http://www.indiana.edu/~kinsey/library/mediaresponses.html </ref> <ref> http://www.indiana.edu/~kinsey/library/kinsey.html </ref>

* Rev. Elder Troy Perry founded the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches in 1968 which served as a specific outreach to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender communities. <ref>http://www.mcccharleston.org/about/troyperry.htm</ref>

*[[Stonewall Riots]] of 1969 marked a turning point within the Civil Rights Era of the United States. New York City police raided the Stonewall Inn and for the first time the gay patrons fought back which started several days of rioting.<ref>http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/eresources/exhibitions/sw25/case1.html </ref> This bar had been operating illegally by bribing the police and was owned by the [[mafia]]. The riots occurred when the police finally came to shut down the illegal activities occurring at the site.

* American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses in 1973. <ref> http://archive.psych.org/edu/other_res/lib_archives/archives/197308.pdf </ref>

* 'Don't ask, don't tell' policy as crafted by Gen. Colin Powell and approved by Pres. Clinton takes affect in 1993. This measure allows homosexuals to serve in the US military. Sexual orientation will not prohibit anyone from serving though they must not engage in homosexual conduct or openly say they are gay. <ref>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE5D81F30F933A15754C0A965958260</ref>

* Gay marriage became legal in Massachusetts on May 17, 2004 when homosexual couples were granted the same right as heterosexual couples. This right was preceded by years of legal wrangling in the state courts. <ref> http://www.hrc.org/issues/5489.htm </ref>

== Legal Success ==
Courts, including the Supreme Court, have accepted either one or both of these rationales. In ''[[Romer v. Evans]]'', the Court found that discriminating against homosexuals could only be explained by a rational of animus laid bare, which was not enough even to allow state condemnation of homosexuality under the [[rational basis review]] test. ''Romer'', then, protects the status of homosexuality from undue discrimination that occurs without a rational basis.<ref>Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620</ref>

Homosexual conduct was formerly illegal in many states.<ref>See generally ''Bowers v. Hardwick'', 478 U.S. 186</ref> In the last decade of the twentieth century, although these laws existed, they were rarely (if ever) enforced.<ref>''Lawrence v. Texas,'' 539 U.S. 558, Justice Anthony Kennedy, in the Opinion of the Court, found this in his historical analysis.</ref> Without disclosing whether it saw homosexuality as a status protected from discrimination at as high of a level as gender and race, the Court struck down bans on homosexual conduct, framing it as an expansion of its privacy jurisprudence.<ref>''Lawrence v. Texas'', 539 U.S. 558</ref>

The status of homosexuality before the law, then, is in some degree of flux. While bare discrimination against homosexual status is facially unconstitutional lacking a rational basis, and while preventing homosexual conduct is similarly unconstitutional, the Supreme Court has held in these landmark cases that the state may discriminate against homosexuals to preserve an "institution that the law protects" - namely, [[marriage]].<ref>''Lawrence v. Texas''; Kennedy & O'Connor both reached this conclusion explicitly.</ref> As such, the standard to be applied in deciding if discrimination against homosexuals is wrong is somewhere in between [[rational basis review]] and [[strict scrutiny review]]. Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] thinks that this uncertainty will surely be resolved in the favor of gay rights, and he warns that such a legal erosion will result in the downfall of the law's moral authority.<ref>''Lawrence v. Texas'', Scalia, J., dissenting.</ref>

In 2006, [[Catholic Charities]] of Boston closed their adoption program after more than a century of finding homes for [[orphans]] and [[unwanted children]] when it was reported by the ''Boston Globe'' that gay couples had received children placed from the agency.<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/11/catholic_charities_stuns_state_ends_adoptions/ Catholic Charities stuns state, ends adoptions], By Patricia Wen, ''The Boston Globe'', March 11, 2006.</ref> Massachusetts law, barring "orientation discrimination", prohibited one of the nations oldest adoption agencies from refusing service to gay activists, and a mass resignation of the agency's Board in protest followed. <ref>[http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/191kgwgh.asp Banned in Boston], by Maggie Gallagher, ''The Weekly Standard'', 05/15/2006, Volume 011, Issue 33.</ref>

== Opposition to Gay Rights ==
A poll reveals that a majority of US citizens<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/18/AR2007031800484.html | Clinton, Obama Slow to Respond to Questions on Homosexuality] Washington Post, March 18, 2007</ref> disapprove of homosexuality, or at least consider it less than ideal, and prefer that public policy does not encourage it. They also believe that accepting homosexuality would require the loss of rights to free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, and traditional [[marriage]].<ref>Traditional Values Coalition - [http://www.traditional values.org/modules.php?sid=2963 Homosexual Marriage In Canada Killing Free Speech]</ref>
Conservatives criticize attempts by gay rights activists to prohibit any statements which are critical of homosexuality, such as the idea that it is "unnatural" or "sinful", using [[hate crime]]s statutes and anti-[[discrimination]] laws. These laws violate the rights of those against homosexuality to continue trying to restrict the rights of homosexuals.

Conservatives also oppose attempts by homosexual activists to indoctrinate children by using liberal tactics such as ''tolerance'' or forcing ''diversity'' programs onto children in schools which strongly encourage the acceptance of homosexual behavior. Notable figures including [[Tony Perkins]] have expressed concerns. As any logical examination of the world would have one conclude, tolerance is an insidious construct which breeds relativism and lack of judgment.

*The EU parliament called on Polish authorities to publicly condemn and take measures against declarations by officials "inciting discrimination and hatred based on sexual orientation." [http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8OOFTCO5&show_article=1]

== Support for Gay Rights ==
An April 2009 CNN poll showed the public evenly divided over the US military's Don't Ask Don't Tell policy, with 48% in favor and 47% opposed.<ref>Polling Report http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm</ref> Polls consistently show that most people are opposed to same-sex marriage. Thirty states have had a public referendum on same-sex marriage, and all thirty have voted against it.

==Tactics==

*Kirk and Madsen predicted a mass public change of heart would follow, even among opponents, "if we can actually make them like us." <ref>[http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/socarides.html How America Went Gay], by Charles W. Socarides, M.D., ''America'', November 18, 1995.</ref>

Advocates routinely use [[deceit]], notably pursuing various goal while pretending not to. For example, some advocates will claim:
*The movement does not seek to convince others that homosexuality is ''right''

Yet clearly the drive for "[[tolerance]]" is only one step toward the ultimate goal of "[[approval]]".

Blurring distinctions: Advocates routinely fail to distinguish between [[homosexual behavior]] and homosexuality as an "identity".

===Presenting outstanding homosexuals as contributors to society===



Turing was arrested in 1952 for [[homosexuality|homosexual acts]] and subsequently lost his security clearance. He was allowed to stay out of prison by agreeing to be injected with female hormones (which would supposedly decrease his sex drive). He later confided to a friend that the hormones caused him to grow breasts.<ref>''Oddballs and Eccentrics''. Shaw, Karl. Edison, New Jersey: Castle Books, 2004</ref> This may have contributed to his suicide by [[cyanide]] poisoning in 1954.<ref>http://www.turing.org.uk/turing/index.html</ref> The British Government issued a formal, official apology for the way Alan Turing and other homosexuals were treated in the past.<ref>http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page20571</ref>

==See also==
*[[ACT-UP]]
*[[Anti-Defamation League]]
*[[H.R. 1592: Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007]]
*[[Intimate Partner Violence]]
*[[Human Rights Watch]]

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

==External Links==
*[http://www.city-journal.org/html/13_2_queering_the_schools.html Queering the Schools]

[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]
[[Category:Homosexuality]]

Tularemia

2013-03-26T04:58:13Z

JHunter: created article, it's a stub--I'll work on it more next week

'''Tularemia''' is an infectious disease cause by the [[gram-negative]] bacterium, ''Francisella tularensis''.

Although rabbits and other small mammals are the primary [[reservoir species]], ticks, mosquitoes, and fleas are the primary vectors.

Domain (biology)

2013-01-26T06:49:52Z

JHunter: punctuation

A '''domain''' is the highest taxonomic rank used to classify organisms. Taxonomists currently recognize three domains of life: [[bacteria]], [[archaea]], and [[eukaryote|eukarya]].

Domain (biology)

2013-01-26T06:49:29Z

JHunter: wax on wax off, I stand corrected.

A '''domain''' is the highest taxonomic rank used to classify organisms. Taxonomists currently recognize three domains of life, [[bacteria]], [[archaea]], and [[eukaryote|eukarya]].

Domain (biology)

2013-01-24T02:34:38Z

JHunter: created article, it's a stub. I'll try to write more of it tomorrow.

A '''domain''' is the highest taxonomic rank used to classify organisms. Taxonomists currently recognize three domains of life, [[prokaryote|prokarya]] (also called ''bacteria''), [[archaea]], and [[eukaryote|eukarya]].

Archaea

2013-01-24T02:18:48Z

JHunter: corrrected misplaced comma

'''Archaea''' is one of the three [[Domain (biology)|domains]] of life (the other two being [[prokaryote|prokaryotes]] and [[eukaryote|eukarya]]). It comprises single-celled organisms, similar in size and shape to prokaryotes, that, like prokaryotes, lack internally compartmentalized [[organelles]]. It was established as a separate domain from prokaryotes after biochemical and genetic studies revealed that archaeans formed a genetically distinct group with distinctive biochemistry (notably in the lipid composition of their cell membranes) and metabolic pathways.

RNA polymerase

2013-01-23T13:16:41Z

JHunter: punctuation

'''RNA polymerases''', often abbreviated to '''RNAP''', are the enzymes in a cell responsible for [[transcription|synthesizing]] strands of [[RNA]]. Because this function is essential to life, all organisms (and quite a few viruses) contain at least one type of RNA polymerase. Depending on the RNA polymerase, transcription requires either a [[DNA]] or an RNA template; although in most contexts, "RNA polymerase" refers to the DNA-dependant RNA polymerases which use a DNA template to [[transcription|transcribe]] genes into [[mRNA]] ("messenger" RNA). [[reverse transcriptase|Reverse transcriptases]] are enzymes (usually associated with [[retrovirus|retroviruses]]) that perform the opposite function, using an RNA template to synthesize a [[DNA]] product.

==Types==

Most [[prokaryote|prokaryotes]] and [[archaea|archaeans]] use the same RNA polymerase to transcribe [[mRNA]] and functional non-coding RNAs (e.g. [[rRNA|ribosomal RNAs]] or [[tRNA|transfer RNAs]]). Whereas [[eukaryote|eukaryotes]] (organisms in which the genetic material is contained within a [[nucleus]]) use specialized RNAPs, each responsible for transcribing different classes of RNA.

RNA polymerase II (abbreviated RNAP II or RNA Pol II), is the enzyme responsible for transcribing the vast majority of protein-coding genes in eukaryotes. It is also responsible for transcribing the majority of genes encoding [[snRNA|short nuclear RNAs]] (snRNAs) and [[miRNA|micro RNAs]] (miRNAs). As such, RNAP II is the most well-studied and well understood of the eukaryotic RNAPs. Genes transcribed by RNAP II are referred to as "type II genes" and comprise the vast majority of genes present in eukaryotic genomes.

RNA polymerase I (RNAP I or RNA Pol I) transcribes most of the [[rRNA|ribosomal RNAs]] in a eukaryotic cell (most of which are derived from a single transcript called the "large rRNA precursor").

RNA polymerase III (RNAP III or RNA pol III) transcribes the [[transfer RNA|tRNA]] precursors, as well as the 5S rRNA, the U6 snRNA (involved in [[RNA processing|RNA splicing]])and various other small functional RNA products.

Plant nuclei contain two additional types of RNAP (RNAP IV and RNAP V), which are used to synthesize [[siRNA|short interfering RNAs]] that mostly function in [[gene regulation]].

[[mitochondrial DNA|Mitochondrial genes]] are transcribed by a separate mitochondrial RNA polymerase that is very similar in structure and function to bacterial RNAP.

==Sources==

1. Alberts et al. (2008). ''Molecular biology of the cell''.

[[Category:Genetics]]
[[Category:Biochemistry]]
[[Category:Biology]]

Ribozyme

2013-01-19T00:25:44Z

JHunter: categories

A '''ribozyme''' is a [[RNA|polyribonucleotide]] (RNA molecule) with [[enzyme|enzymatic]] activity<ref>Nelson & Cox. (2008). ''Principles of biochemistry''.</ref>. They are sometimes also referred to as "RNA enzymes" however, to avoid confusion with [[ribonucleoprotein|ribonucleoproteins]] in which the RNA lacks catalytic activity, "ribozyme" is generally preferred.

Ribozymes have been found in every known cell and are essential to cell functioning. The most well known example of an essential ribozyme is the 28S rRNA (called the 23S rRNA in [[prokaryotes]]), which carries out the aminoacyltransferase (peptide-lengthening) activity of [[ribosome|ribosomes]]<ref>Alberts et al. (2008). ''Molecular biology of the cell''.</ref>.

==Structure and Function==

Similar to [[proteins]], RNAs derive their function from their structure. The ''primary structure'' of an RNA refers to its sequence, which allows the RNA to adopt local conformational structures (e.g. RNA hairpins), these ''secondary structures'' give the RNA molecule an overall ''tertiary structure''. For RNAs that function in a complex, either with proteins or other RNAs or both, the structure of the complex is called ''quaternary structure''.

The catalytic site (or sites) of a ribozyme function in a similar manner to the active sites of protein [[enzyme|enzymes]]. They lower the ΔG‡ ([[Gibbs energy]]) of a chemical reaction by binding to the substrates in a manner that makes the reaction more energetically favorable. Also like protein enzymes, many ribozymes require [[cofactors]] (e.g. Mg2+) in order to function properly.

==Examples==

===28S rRNA===

The '''28S rRNA''' (the 23S rRNA in [[prokaryotes]]) is a [[rRNA|ribosomal RNA]]. It is the part of the ''large subunit'' of a [[ribosome]] that catalyzes [[peptide bond]] formation between amino acids during protein synthesis<ref>Weaver, Robert F. ''Molecular Biology''. 4th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2008.</ref>.

Notably, the antibiotic [[chloramphenicol]] works by inhibiting the aminoacyltransferase activity of the bacterial 23S rRNA.

===Self-splicing introns===

Self-splicing [[introns]] in a nascent RNA transcript are ribozymes that excise themselves without the need for [[spliceosome|spliceosomal]] machinery.<ref>http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.bi.59.070190.002551</ref><ref>http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/2684776/reload=0;jsessionid=cbVlUxsItMpW86YJDO8j.2</ref><ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v430/n6995/abs/nature02642.html</ref>

Although self-splicing introns are relatively rare in [[eukaryote|eukaryotic]] genes, they are the only types of introns found in the few bacterial protein-coding genes that contain introns. Self-splicing introns appear to have originated in ancient [[retrovirus|retroviruses]]. Furthermore, the remarkable sequence homology between bacterial and eukaryotic self-splicing introns is considered a major piece of evidence for the common origin of introns in both [[domain (biology)|domains]].<ref>http://www.biology-direct.com/content/pdf/1745-6150-1-22.pdf</ref><ref>http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.genet.40.110405.090625?journalCode=genet</ref><ref>http://sites.bio.indiana.edu/~palmerlab/Journals/137.pdf</ref>

===RNase P===

'''RNase P''' is a ribozyme with ribonuclease (RNA cutting) activity found in all known forms of cellular life. It is responsible for processing precursor-tRNAs as well as precursors to some other functional RNAs within the cell.<ref>http://rna.cshl.edu/content/free/chapters/14_rna_world_2nd.pdf</ref><ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9759486</ref><ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC148169/pdf/270314.pdf</ref>

===The spliceosome (hypothesized)===

In eukaryotes, the [[spliceosome]] is the ribonucleoprotein complex that [[RNA processing|removes]] the intronic sequences from most precursor-mRNAs. While it has not historically been considered a ribozyme, recent experimental evidence suggests that it might be. Researchers are currently investigating this possibility.<ref>http://www.nature.com/nsmb/journal/v7/n10/abs/nsb1000_850.html</ref><ref>http://www.pnas.org/content/106/30/12211.short</ref><ref>http://classes.biology.ucsd.edu/bggn220.FA07/Valadkhan%2007%20ribozyme.pdf</ref>

==Origin of Life Debate==

Ribozymes are currently a centerpiece in the ongoing debate on the origin of life. The ability of some RNA polymerizing ribozymes to synthesize functional products without the need for a [[DNA]] template<ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11358999</ref> (they use an RNA template instead) makes RNA an attractive candidate for hypothetical primitive [[biochemistry]]. There is a growing body of chemical, [[molecular biology|molecular biological]], and [[geology|geological]] evidence which supports this hypothesis<ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7244/full/nature08013.html</ref><ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2673073/pdf/743.pdf</ref><ref>http://bonhamchemistry.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/RNA_World.pdf</ref><ref>http://www.springerlink.com/content/k84710318l244777/</ref><ref>http://dasher.wustl.edu/bio5357/reading/nature-418-214-02.pdf</ref><ref>http://auditore.cab.inta-csic.es/manrubia/files/2012/09/OLEB40-429.pdf</ref><ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3293468/pdf/nihms78555.pdf</ref>. Additionally, the recent development of a self-replicating ribozyme derived from a viral ribozyme<ref>http://www.pnas.org/content/99/20/12733.full.pdf+html</ref><ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22551009</ref>, demonstrates that self-replicating RNAs ''can'' exist. However, the evidence remains largely circumstantial as nothing conclusive has been found thus far and, even among biochemists, the hypothesis does have its detractors<ref>http://www.biology-direct.com/content/pdf/1745-6150-7-23.pdf</ref>.

This hypothesis that life originated from RNA and ribonucleoprotein based biochemistry is called the ''RNA world hypothesis''. It is considered by many biochemists to be the most plausible current hypothesis for the origin of life. Research investigating this possibility is currently ongoing.

==References==

<references/>
[[Category:Genetics]]
[[Category:Biochemistry]]
[[Category:Biology]]

RNA polymerase

2012-12-08T04:33:37Z

JHunter: categories

'''RNA polymerases''', often abbreviated to '''RNAP''', are the enzymes in a cell responsible for [[transcription|synthesizing]] strands of [[RNA]]. Because this function is essential to life, all organisms (and quite a few viruses) contain at least one type of RNA polymerase. Depending on the RNA polymerase, transcription requires either a [[DNA]] or an RNA template; although in most contexts, "RNA polymerase" refers to the DNA-dependant RNA polymerases, which use a DNA template to [[transcription|transcribe]] genes into [[mRNA]] ("messenger" RNA). [[reverse transcriptase|Reverse transcriptases]] are enzymes (usually associated with [[retrovirus|retroviruses]]) that perform the opposite function, using an RNA template to synthesize a [[DNA]] product.

==Types==

Most [[prokaryote|prokaryotes]] and [[archaea|archaeans]] use the same RNA polymerase to transcribe [[mRNA]] and functional non-coding RNAs (e.g. [[rRNA|ribosomal RNAs]] or [[tRNA|transfer RNAs]]). Whereas [[eukaryote|eukaryotes]] (organisms in which the genetic material is contained within a [[nucleus]]) use specialized RNAPs, each responsible for transcribing different classes of RNA.

RNA polymerase II (abbreviated RNAP II or RNA Pol II), is the enzyme responsible for transcribing the vast majority of protein-coding genes in eukaryotes. It is also responsible for transcribing the majority of genes encoding [[snRNA|short nuclear RNAs]] (snRNAs) and [[miRNA|micro RNAs]] (miRNAs). As such, RNAP II is the most well-studied and well understood of the eukaryotic RNAPs. Genes transcribed by RNAP II are referred to as "type II genes" and comprise the vast majority of genes present in eukaryotic genomes.

RNA polymerase I (RNAP I or RNA Pol I) transcribes most of the [[rRNA|ribosomal RNAs]] in a eukaryotic cell (most of which are derived from a single transcript called the "large rRNA precursor").

RNA polymerase III (RNAP III or RNA pol III) transcribes the [[transfer RNA|tRNA]] precursors, as well as the 5S rRNA, the U6 snRNA (involved in [[RNA processing|RNA splicing]])and various other small functional RNA products.

Plant nuclei contain two additional types of RNAP (RNAP IV and RNAP V), which are used to synthesize [[siRNA|short interfering RNAs]] that mostly function in [[gene regulation]].

[[mitochondrial DNA|Mitochondrial genes]] are transcribed by a separate mitochondrial RNA polymerase that is very similar in structure and function to bacterial RNAP.

==Sources==

1. Alberts et al. (2008). ''Molecular biology of the cell''.

[[Category:Genetics]]
[[Category:Biochemistry]]
[[Category:Biology]]

RNA

2012-12-08T04:32:27Z

JHunter: categories

'''Ribonucleic acid''' (RNA) is a family of biomolecules which perform several essential functions within all cells. As a type of nucleic acid, RNA is structurally and chemically very similar to [[DNA]]; the two largest differences being that RNA contains ribose instead of 2'-deoxyribose and uses [[uracil]] instead of [[thymine]] as one of its four bases<ref>Nelson & Cox. (2008). ''Principles of biochemistry''.</ref>.

Unlike DNA, which is primarily used as a template for [[transcription]], RNA molecules perform a diverse set of functions within the cell. Subsets of RNA are generally classified by their function, which can range from acting as the template for [[translation|protein synthesis]] ("messenger RNA" or "[[mRNA]]") to performing [[ribozyme|enzymatic functions]]. Additionally, many viruses use RNA instead of DNA as their genetic material (e.g. [[retrovirus|retroviruses]]).

As with DNA, RNAs can exist in single-stranded (annotated "ssRNA") or double-stranded ("dsRNA") forms; however, the vast majority of cellular RNAs are single-stranded. dsRNAs generally function in post-transcriptional [[gene regulation]] or as viral genetic material. Targeted degradation of dsRNAs is a major intracellular defence mechanism against viruses<ref>Alberts et al. (2008). ''Molecular biology of the cell''.</ref><ref>Weaver, Robert F. ''Molecular Biology''. 4th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2008.</ref>.

==Structure==

Every nucleotide of RNA consists of a ribose molecule with a nitrogenous base attached to its 1' carbon and a phosphate group attached to its 5' carbon. Individual RNA nucleotides are linked by a [[phosphodiester bond]] between the 3' carbon of one nucleotide's ribose and the 5' carbon on the next.

The four nitrogenous bases used in RNA are [[adenine]], [[guanine]], [[cytosine]], and [[uracil]]. Adenine and guanine are the ''purine'' bases, cytosine and uracil are the ''pyrimidine'' bases. Like in DNA, these bases can hybridize through [[hydrogen bond|hydrogen bonds]]; adenine hybridizes with uracil and guanine hybridizes cytosine.

Hybridization of nucleotides within RNA molecules allows for the formation of ''secondary structures'' such as RNA hairpins, these secondary structures give RNA molecules an overall ''tertiary structure'' which is often essential for the RNA to perform its function. Additionally, RNAs can hybridize through base pairing with other RNAs or with complementary DNA sequences.

==Function==

RNA performs a wide variety of functions within the cell. Types of RNA are specified by the functions that they perform. More than 21 functional classes of RNA have been identified, the most common types are described below.

===mRNA===

''Messenger RNAs'' ([[mRNA]]) are the template molecules which are ''translated'' into [[protein|proteins]] by [[ribosome|ribosomes]]. They are generally synthesized by [[transcription]] of a DNA template (a [[gene]]) by [[RNA polymerase]], although some viral mRNAs are directly transcribed from an RNA template.

In [[eukaryote|eukaryotes]], nascent RNA transcripts must generally be processed from ''pre-mRNA'' into mature mRNA, via ''RNA processing'', before they are exported from the nucleus to be translated into proteins.

===rRNA===

''Ribosomal RNAs'' ([[rRNA]]) are the RNA molecules that form a major component of the [[ribosome|ribosomes]]. There are three rRNAs in [[prokaryote|prokaryotes]] and four rRNAs in [[eukaryote|eukaryotes]] and [[archaea|archaeans]].

The genes encoding rRNAs are among the most highly conserved (low level of sequence variance between individuals and species) genes in any genome. As such, rRNA sequences are often used to generate very precise phylogenetic trees.

The 28S rRNA (23S rRNA in prokaryotes) is a [[ribozyme]], and is responsible for the aminoacyltransferase (polypeptide-lengthening) activity of the ribosome.

===tRNA===

''Transfer RNAs'' ([[tRNA]]) are the ''adapter molecules'' that recognize ''codons'' during translation and bring specific [[amino acids]] to the [[ribosome]] to be added to the growing [[protein|polypeptide]] chain.

The "cloverleaf" tertiary structure of tRNAs is a common textbook example of the link between RNA structure and function.

===microRNA===

''Micro RNAs'' ([[microRNA]])are short RNA molecules involved in post-transcriptional [[gene regulation]]. microRNAs work by binding to complementary sequences on target mRNAs; thus targeting the mRNA for degradation via the [[RISC|RNA-induced silencing complex]] or, less commonly, blocking translation of the mRNA by [[steric hindrance|steric]] (mechanical) hindrance.

In their mature, functional form, microRNA molecules are 20 to 24 nucleotides long. This length allows for microRNAs to have a very high degree of target specificity (some microRNAs may only have a single target mRNA).

Because the mechanics of [[RNA polymerase]] require a minimum transcript length of about 50-100 nucleotides, precursor microRNAs are at least 80 nucleotides long (most are longer). As such, several different microRNAs are usually derived from a single precursor transcript.

Together with siRNAs, microRNAs are a major component of ''gene regulatory networks'', which allow the cell to rapidly and efficiently respond to environmental stimuli.

===siRNA===

''Short interfering RNAs'' ([[siRNA]]) are short (~21 base pairs), double-stranded RNA molecules which function in a manner similar to microRNAs (described above).

siRNAs are commonly used in research for targeted gene knockdown (blocking the expression of a specific gene) and they are also used in several gene therapies.

===snRNA===

''Small nuclear RNAs'' ([[snRNA]]) are involved in several different processes that occur within the nucleus, notably [[RNA splicing]] and the regulation of certain [[transcription factor|transcription factors]]. They generally function in complexes with specific proteins; these snRNA and protein complexes are called ''small nuclear ribonucleoproteins'' ("snRNPs", colloquially pronounced "snurps").

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

Epigenetics

2012-12-01T18:41:40Z

JHunter: fixed typo

'''Epigenetics''' is the study of the heredity of variations in [[gene]] [[gene regulation|regulation]] and, thus, [[phenotype]], that occurs independent of any change in [[DNA]] sequence. The primary mechanism by which this happens is through [[post-translational modifications|post translational modification]] (e.g. methylation and acetylation) of [[histones]], although several other mechanisms are known to exist. Epigenetic gene regulation is also important physiologically; epigenetic reprogramming is one of the major mechanisms by which [[pluripotent stem cells]] and, subsequently, their daughter cells are committed to a specific [[list of cell types|cell type]] lineage during [[developmental biology|development]]<ref>Strachan & Read (2004). ''Human Molecular Genetics''.</ref>.

Epigenetic inheritance allows for more dramatic and rapid phenotypic change withinin populations across generations, and thus more rapid [[adaptation]] to environmental change, than random [[mutation]] alone. In some species, certain traits are known to be on a sort of epigenetic "on/off switch" (e.g. the presence or absence of protective spines in ''Raphanus raphanistrum'', the wild radish), where they can be activated or deactivated between generations in response to environmental challenge<ref>http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev.genom.9.081307.164445</ref><ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19606595</ref><ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19606595</ref>.

Epigenetic silencing is also thought to provide a natural protection against [[retrovirus|retroviruses]] and inappropriate activation of [[transposons|transposable DNA elements]] (segments of DNA that move around in the genome)<ref>Simmen et al. (1999). Nonmethylated transposable elements and methylated genes in a chordate genome. ''Science'' 283, 1164-1167.</ref>. Although, the precise nature of this role is still somewhat disputed and remains an active area of research.

However, the most important role of epigenetic gene regulation, by far, is in differential [[gene regulation]] during [[developmental biology|development]], where epigenetic reprogramming is a major regulator of [[cell differentiation]].

==References==

<references/>
[[category:Genetics]]

Adult stem cells

2012-11-21T03:49:41Z

JHunter: reworded a few sentences for clarity

'''Adult stem cells''' are multipotent, semi-differentiated, [[cell]]s that exist in all tissues. "Adult stem cell", however, is not the preferred term used in the field to refer to them—developmental biologists will usually refer to them as "tissue resident stem cells" or as a specific cell type (often referencing the genes they express). They function to maintain tissue homeostasis by dividing to replace damaged or senescent somatic cells. The two most well-studied examples of adult stem cells are the hematopoietic stem cells, which give rise to blood cells, and the intestinal crypt stem cells, which give rise to the intestinal epithelium.<ref>http://9e.devbio.com/</ref>

As multipotent cells, most adult stem cell types can generate cells of several different types. However, because they are already epigenetically programmed to favor a particular fate, they generally cannot generate cell types outside of their lineage without genetic manipulation.

Identifying and characterizing stem cells within all adult tissues is an area of much intense ongoing research. Understanding the mechanisms underlying the regulation of these stem cells has led to many recent breakthroughs in the field of cancer biology. A recent paradigm-shift in cancer biology was the discovery that cancer is a disease resulting from dysregulation of adult stem cells. The clinical implications of this concept are still being explored. Obviously, there is still much in this field that remains unknown.

Functionally, adult stem cells are very different from embryonic stem cells. Whereas embryonic stem cells are omnipotent, and may be coaxed with growth factors into producing any known cell type, adult stem cells are already partially committed to a particular fate and, without genetic manipulation, will only generate a limited number of cell types. As stated above, this is currently an intensive area of research, but at the present the two are not practically equivalent.

[[Induced pluripotent stem cells]] are fully differentiated somatic cells that have been manipulated, either genetically or with growth factors (often a combination of the two), to become pluripotent stem cells. These cells still retain some [[epigenetics|epigenetic]] imprinting of their original type--even with the most current techniques. Mouse models have demonstrated that these cells have a significantly higher tumorigenic potential than transplanted embryonic stem cells. As such, therapies involving induced pluripotent stem cells are primarily being studied only as options of last resort. As scientists in the field devise better ways to generate these cells (new techniques are a current area of much research--there have been at least 40 published since 2009), they may become more clinically useful. Until that happens, induced pluripotent cells cannot substitute for adult or embryonic stem cells in clinical medicine or research.

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Genetics]]
[[Category:Medicine]]

RNA

2012-11-07T00:41:32Z

JHunter:

'''Ribonucleic acid''' (RNA) is a family of biomolecules which perform several essential functions within all cells. As a type of nucleic acid, RNA is structurally and chemically very similar to [[DNA]]; the two largest differences being that RNA contains ribose instead of 2'-deoxyribose and uses [[uracil]] instead of [[thymine]] as one of its four bases<ref>Nelson & Cox. (2008). ''Principles of biochemistry''.</ref>.

Unlike DNA, which is primarily used as a template for [[transcription]], RNA molecules perform a diverse set of functions within the cell. Subsets of RNA are generally classified by their function, which can range from acting as the template for [[translation|protein synthesis]] ("messenger RNA" or "[[mRNA]]") to performing [[ribozyme|enzymatic functions]]. Additionally, many viruses use RNA instead of DNA as their genetic material (e.g. [[retrovirus|retroviruses]]).

As with DNA, RNAs can exist in single-stranded (annotated "ssRNA") or double-stranded ("dsRNA") forms; however, the vast majority of cellular RNAs are single-stranded. dsRNAs generally function in post-transcriptional [[gene regulation]] or as viral genetic material. Targeted degradation of dsRNAs is a major intracellular defence mechanism against viruses<ref>Alberts et al. (2008). ''Molecular biology of the cell''.</ref><ref>Weaver, Robert F. ''Molecular Biology''. 4th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2008.</ref>.

==Structure==

Every nucleotide of RNA consists of a ribose molecule with a nitrogenous base attached to its 1' carbon and a phosphate group attached to its 5' carbon. Individual RNA nucleotides are linked by a [[phosphodiester bond]] between the 3' carbon of one nucleotide's ribose and the 5' carbon on the next.

The four nitrogenous bases used in RNA are [[adenine]], [[guanine]], [[cytosine]], and [[uracil]]. Adenine and guanine are the ''purine'' bases, cytosine and uracil are the ''pyrimidine'' bases. Like in DNA, these bases can hybridize through [[hydrogen bond|hydrogen bonds]]; adenine hybridizes with uracil and guanine hybridizes cytosine.

Hybridization of nucleotides within RNA molecules allows for the formation of ''secondary structures'' such as RNA hairpins, these secondary structures give RNA molecules an overall ''tertiary structure'' which is often essential for the RNA to perform its function. Additionally, RNAs can hybridize through base pairing with other RNAs or with complementary DNA sequences.

==Function==

RNA performs a wide variety of functions within the cell. Types of RNA are specified by the functions that they perform. More than 21 functional classes of RNA have been identified, the most common types are described below.

===mRNA===

''Messenger RNAs'' ([[mRNA]]) are the template molecules which are ''translated'' into [[protein|proteins]] by [[ribosome|ribosomes]]. They are generally synthesized by [[transcription]] of a DNA template (a [[gene]]) by [[RNA polymerase]], although some viral mRNAs are directly transcribed from an RNA template.

In [[eukaryote|eukaryotes]], nascent RNA transcripts must generally be processed from ''pre-mRNA'' into mature mRNA, via ''RNA processing'', before they are exported from the nucleus to be translated into proteins.

===rRNA===

''Ribosomal RNAs'' ([[rRNA]]) are the RNA molecules that form a major component of the [[ribosome|ribosomes]]. There are three rRNAs in [[prokaryote|prokaryotes]] and four rRNAs in [[eukaryote|eukaryotes]] and [[archaea|archaeans]].

The genes encoding rRNAs are among the most highly conserved (low level of sequence variance between individuals and species) genes in any genome. As such, rRNA sequences are often used to generate very precise phylogenetic trees.

The 28S rRNA (23S rRNA in prokaryotes) is a [[ribozyme]], and is responsible for the aminoacyltransferase (polypeptide-lengthening) activity of the ribosome.

===tRNA===

''Transfer RNAs'' ([[tRNA]]) are the ''adapter molecules'' that recognize ''codons'' during translation and bring specific [[amino acids]] to the [[ribosome]] to be added to the growing [[protein|polypeptide]] chain.

The "cloverleaf" tertiary structure of tRNAs is a common textbook example of the link between RNA structure and function.

===microRNA===

''Micro RNAs'' ([[microRNA]])are short RNA molecules involved in post-transcriptional [[gene regulation]]. microRNAs work by binding to complementary sequences on target mRNAs; thus targeting the mRNA for degradation via the [[RISC|RNA-induced silencing complex]] or, less commonly, blocking translation of the mRNA by [[steric hindrance|steric]] (mechanical) hindrance.

In their mature, functional form, microRNA molecules are 20 to 24 nucleotides long. This length allows for microRNAs to have a very high degree of target specificity (some microRNAs may only have a single target mRNA).

Because the mechanics of [[RNA polymerase]] require a minimum transcript length of about 50-100 nucleotides, precursor microRNAs are at least 80 nucleotides long (most are longer). As such, several different microRNAs are usually derived from a single precursor transcript.

Together with siRNAs, microRNAs are a major component of ''gene regulatory networks'', which allow the cell to rapidly and efficiently respond to environmental stimuli.

===siRNA===

''Short interfering RNAs'' ([[siRNA]]) are short (~21 base pairs), double-stranded RNA molecules which function in a manner similar to microRNAs (described above).

siRNAs are commonly used in research for targeted gene knockdown (blocking the expression of a specific gene) and they are also used in several gene therapies.

===snRNA===

''Small nuclear RNAs'' ([[snRNA]]) are involved in several different processes that occur within the nucleus, notably [[RNA splicing]] and the regulation of certain [[transcription factor|transcription factors]]. They generally function in complexes with specific proteins; these snRNA and protein complexes are called ''small nuclear ribonucleoproteins'' ("snRNPs", colloquially pronounced "snurps").

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

RNA

2012-11-07T00:38:14Z

JHunter: /* Function */ snurps

'''Ribonucleic acid''' (RNA) is a family of biomolecules which perform several essential functions within all cells. As a type of nucleic acid, RNA is structurally and chemically very similar to [[DNA]]; the two largest differences being that RNA contains ribose instead of 2'-deoxyribose and uses [[uracil]] instead of [[thymine]] as one of its four bases.

Unlike DNA, which is primarily used as a template for [[transcription]], RNA molecules perform a diverse set of functions within the cell. Subsets of RNA are generally classified by their function, which can range from acting as the template for [[translation|protein synthesis]] ("messenger RNA" or "[[mRNA]]") to performing [[ribozyme|enzymatic functions]]. Additionally, many viruses use RNA instead of DNA as their genetic material (e.g. [[retrovirus|retroviruses]]).

As with DNA, RNAs can exist in single-stranded (annotated "ssRNA") or double-stranded ("dsRNA") forms; however, the vast majority of cellular RNAs are single-stranded. dsRNAs generally function in post-transcriptional [[gene regulation]] or as viral genetic material. Targeted degradation of dsRNAs is a major intracellular defence mechanism against viruses.

==Structure==

Every nucleotide of RNA consists of a ribose molecule with a nitrogenous base attached to its 1' carbon and a phosphate group attached to its 5' carbon. Individual RNA nucleotides are linked by a [[phosphodiester bond]] between the 3' carbon of one nucleotide's ribose and the 5' carbon on the next.

The four nitrogenous bases used in RNA are [[adenine]], [[guanine]], [[cytosine]], and [[uracil]]. Adenine and guanine are the ''purine'' bases, cytosine and uracil are the ''pyrimidine'' bases. Like in DNA, these bases can hybridize through [[hydrogen bond|hydrogen bonds]]; adenine hybridizes with uracil and guanine hybridizes cytosine.

Hybridization of nucleotides within RNA molecules allows for the formation of ''secondary structures'' such as RNA hairpins, these secondary structures give RNA molecules an overall ''tertiary structure'' which is often essential for the RNA to perform its function. Additionally, RNAs can hybridize through base pairing with other RNAs or with complementary DNA sequences.

==Function==

RNA performs a wide variety of functions within the cell. Types of RNA are specified by the functions that they perform. More than 21 functional classes of RNA have been identified, the most common types are described below.

===mRNA===

''Messenger RNAs'' ([[mRNA]]) are the template molecules which are ''translated'' into [[protein|proteins]] by [[ribosome|ribosomes]]. They are generally synthesized by [[transcription]] of a DNA template (a [[gene]]) by [[RNA polymerase]], although some viral mRNAs are directly transcribed from an RNA template.

In [[eukaryote|eukaryotes]], nascent RNA transcripts must generally be processed from ''pre-mRNA'' into mature mRNA, via ''RNA processing'', before they are exported from the nucleus to be translated into proteins.

===rRNA===

''Ribosomal RNAs'' ([[rRNA]]) are the RNA molecules that form a major component of the [[ribosome|ribosomes]]. There are three rRNAs in [[prokaryote|prokaryotes]] and four rRNAs in [[eukaryote|eukaryotes]] and [[archaea|archaeans]].

The genes encoding rRNAs are among the most highly conserved (low level of sequence variance between individuals and species) genes in any genome. As such, rRNA sequences are often used to generate very precise phylogenetic trees.

The 28S rRNA (23S rRNA in prokaryotes) is a [[ribozyme]], and is responsible for the aminoacyltransferase (polypeptide-lengthening) activity of the ribosome.

===tRNA===

''Transfer RNAs'' ([[tRNA]]) are the ''adapter molecules'' that recognize ''codons'' during translation and bring specific [[amino acids]] to the [[ribosome]] to be added to the growing [[protein|polypeptide]] chain.

The "cloverleaf" tertiary structure of tRNAs is a common textbook example of the link between RNA structure and function.

===microRNA===

''Micro RNAs'' ([[microRNA]])are short RNA molecules involved in post-transcriptional [[gene regulation]]. microRNAs work by binding to complementary sequences on target mRNAs; thus targeting the mRNA for degradation via the [[RISC|RNA-induced silencing complex]] or, less commonly, blocking translation of the mRNA by [[steric hindrance|steric]] (mechanical) hindrance.

In their mature, functional form, microRNA molecules are 20 to 24 nucleotides long. This length allows for microRNAs to have a very high degree of target specificity (some microRNAs may only have a single target mRNA).

Because the mechanics of [[RNA polymerase]] require a minimum transcript length of about 50-100 nucleotides, precursor microRNAs are at least 80 nucleotides long (most are longer). As such, several different microRNAs are usually derived from a single precursor transcript.

Together with siRNAs, microRNAs are a major component of ''gene regulatory networks'', which allow the cell to rapidly and efficiently respond to environmental stimuli.

===siRNA===

''Short interfering RNAs'' ([[siRNA]]) are short (~21 base pairs), double-stranded RNA molecules which function in a manner similar to microRNAs (described above).

siRNAs are commonly used in research for targeted gene knockdown (blocking the expression of a specific gene) and they are also used in several gene therapies.

===snRNA===

''Small nuclear RNAs'' ([[snRNA]]) are involved in several different processes that occur within the nucleus, notably [[RNA splicing]] and the regulation of certain [[transcription factor|transcription factors]]. They generally function in complexes with specific proteins; these snRNA and protein complexes are called ''small nuclear ribonucleoproteins'' ("snRNPs", colloquially pronounced "snurps").

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

RNA

2012-11-06T21:07:26Z

JHunter: /* Function */ microRNAs and siRNAs, will expand more later

'''Ribonucleic acid''' (RNA) is a family of biomolecules which perform several essential functions within all cells. As a type of nucleic acid, RNA is structurally and chemically very similar to [[DNA]]; the two largest differences being that RNA contains ribose instead of 2'-deoxyribose and uses [[uracil]] instead of [[thymine]] as one of its four bases.

Unlike DNA, which is primarily used as a template for [[transcription]], RNA molecules perform a diverse set of functions within the cell. Subsets of RNA are generally classified by their function, which can range from acting as the template for [[translation|protein synthesis]] ("messenger RNA" or "[[mRNA]]") to performing [[ribozyme|enzymatic functions]]. Additionally, many viruses use RNA instead of DNA as their genetic material (e.g. [[retrovirus|retroviruses]]).

As with DNA, RNAs can exist in single-stranded (annotated "ssRNA") or double-stranded ("dsRNA") forms; however, the vast majority of cellular RNAs are single-stranded. dsRNAs generally function in post-transcriptional [[gene regulation]] or as viral genetic material. Targeted degradation of dsRNAs is a major intracellular defence mechanism against viruses.

==Structure==

Every nucleotide of RNA consists of a ribose molecule with a nitrogenous base attached to its 1' carbon and a phosphate group attached to its 5' carbon. Individual RNA nucleotides are linked by a [[phosphodiester bond]] between the 3' carbon of one nucleotide's ribose and the 5' carbon on the next.

The four nitrogenous bases used in RNA are [[adenine]], [[guanine]], [[cytosine]], and [[uracil]]. Adenine and guanine are the ''purine'' bases, cytosine and uracil are the ''pyrimidine'' bases. Like in DNA, these bases can hybridize through [[hydrogen bond|hydrogen bonds]]; adenine hybridizes with uracil and guanine hybridizes cytosine.

Hybridization of nucleotides within RNA molecules allows for the formation of ''secondary structures'' such as RNA hairpins, these secondary structures give RNA molecules an overall ''tertiary structure'' which is often essential for the RNA to perform its function. Additionally, RNAs can hybridize through base pairing with other RNAs or with complementary DNA sequences.

==Function==

RNA performs a wide variety of functions within the cell. Types of RNA are specified by the functions that they perform. More than 21 functional classes of RNA have been identified, the most common types are described below.

===mRNA===

''Messenger RNAs'' ([[mRNA]]) are the template molecules which are ''translated'' into [[protein|proteins]] by [[ribosome|ribosomes]]. They are generally synthesized by [[transcription]] of a DNA template (a [[gene]]) by [[RNA polymerase]], although some viral mRNAs are directly transcribed from an RNA template.

In [[eukaryote|eukaryotes]], nascent RNA transcripts must generally be processed from ''pre-mRNA'' into mature mRNA, via ''RNA processing'', before they are exported from the nucleus to be translated into proteins.

===rRNA===

''Ribosomal RNAs'' ([[rRNA]]) are the RNA molecules that form a major component of the [[ribosome|ribosomes]]. There are three rRNAs in [[prokaryote|prokaryotes]] and four rRNAs in [[eukaryote|eukaryotes]] and [[archaea|archaeans]].

The genes encoding rRNAs are among the most highly conserved (low level of sequence variance between individuals and species) genes in any genome. As such, rRNA sequences are often used to generate very precise phylogenetic trees.

The 28S rRNA (23S rRNA in prokaryotes) is a [[ribozyme]], and is responsible for the aminoacyltransferase (polypeptide-lengthening) activity of the ribosome.

===tRNA===

''Transfer RNAs'' ([[tRNA]]) are the ''adapter molecules'' that recognize ''codons'' during translation and bring specific [[amino acids]] to the [[ribosome]] to be added to the growing [[protein|polypeptide]] chain.

The "cloverleaf" tertiary structure of tRNAs is a common textbook example of the link between RNA structure and function.

===microRNA===

''Micro RNAs'' ([[microRNA]])are short RNA molecules involved in post-transcriptional [[gene regulation]]. microRNAs work by binding to complementary sequences on target mRNAs; thus targeting the mRNA for degradation via the [[RISC|RNA-induced silencing complex]] or, less commonly, blocking translation of the mRNA by [[steric hindrance|steric]] (mechanical) hindrance.

In their mature, functional form, microRNA molecules are 20 to 24 nucleotides long. This length allows for microRNAs to have a very high degree of target specificity (some microRNAs may only have a single target mRNA).

Because the mechanics of [[RNA polymerase]] require a minimum transcript length of about 50-100 nucleotides, precursor microRNAs are at least 80 nucleotides long (most are longer). As such, several different microRNAs are usually derived from a single precursor transcript.

Together with siRNAs, microRNAs are a major component of ''gene regulatory networks'', which allow the cell to rapidly and efficiently respond to environmental stimuli.

===siRNA===

''Short interfering RNAs'' ([[siRNA]]) are short (~21 base pairs), double-stranded RNA molecules which function in a manner similar to microRNAs (described above).

siRNAs are commonly used in research for targeted gene knockdown (blocking the expression of a specific gene), and they are also used in several gene therapies.

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

RNA

2012-11-04T04:30:38Z

JHunter: saving progress again

RNA

2012-11-04T04:13:53Z

JHunter: my internet connection is kind of spotty, so I'm saving again

RNA

2012-11-04T04:01:00Z

JHunter: saving progress again

RNA

2012-11-04T03:37:28Z

JHunter: saving progress again

RNA

2012-11-04T02:35:07Z

JHunter: currently re-writing article. saving progress.

Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists

2012-11-02T01:10:20Z

JHunter: /* What an evolutionist would say */

.In May 2011 [[Creation Ministries International]] launched the [[Question evolution! campaign]]. Core to this campaign are '''15 Questions for Evolutionists'''. In this debate, I want to collect answers to these questions - and replies to these answers by creationist. I'll try something new: this debate will be somewhat moderated - as I want to get concise arguments, I'll take out all personal attacks on the debate page.

The 15 Questions for evolutionists can be found [http://creation.com/15-questions HERE] and there are 15 links on that page for those interested in further study.

Creation Ministries International has issued three response web pages to evolutionists concerning their replies to the 15 questions which can be found at these web locations:

*[http://creation.com/15-questions-responses-1 Responses to our 15 Questions: part 1 - Questions 1–3]

*[http://creation.com/15-questions-responses-2 Responses to our 15 Questions: part 2 - Questions 4–8]

*[http://creation.com/15-questions-responses-3 Responses to our 15 Questions: part 3 - Questions 9–15].

In addition, Creation Ministries International released a series of educational videos designed to rebut evolutionist responses to the 15 questions for evolutionists:

*[http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed?page=2&fileID=f4hTmRKz8rc 15 Questions for Evolutionists -- General objections]

*[http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed?page=2&fileID=IizKNWUrMwU 15 Questions for Evolutionists -- Question 1]

*[http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed?page=2&fileID=e7CXwh46dX0 15 Questions for Evolutionists -- Question 2]

*[http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed?page=1&fileID=q1fxW1eTjZc 15 Questions for Evolutionists - Question 3]

*[http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed?page=1&fileID=WK9t8pmVKdc 15 Questions for Evolutionists - Question 4]

*[http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed?page=1&fileID=FvSH3wbAiRE 15 Questions for Evolutionists - Question 5]

*[http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed?page=1&fileID=OVm8lSFjaa8 15 Questions for Evolutionists - Question 6]

*[http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed?page=1&fileID=sxoa-L7KFGM 15 Questions for Evolutionists - Question 7]

*[http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed?page=1&fileID=Cu0IK-EB5F4 15 Questions for Evolutionists - Question 8]

*[http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed?page=1&fileID=yXeKk18jUTc 15 Questions for Evolutionists - Question 9]

*[http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed?page=1&fileID=bFM1jJvnaW4 15 Questions for Evolutionists - Question 10]

*[http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed?page=1&fileID=rziDQqF4FJM 15 Questions for Evolutionists - Question 11]

*[http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed?page=1&fileID=YuKJPlWIP3o 15 Questions for Evolutionists - Question 12]

*[http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed?page=1&fileID=dfbS3nESkFE 15 Questions for Evolutionists - Question 13]

*[http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed?page=1&fileID=8R7LTkBR1no 15 Questions for Evolutionists - Question 14]

*[http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed?page=1&fileID=pZsPDy_K3sA 15 Questions for Evolutionists - Question 15]

Fan responses to evolutionist objections:

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRz0ORtoIRg&feature=BFa&list=PL12B8A2B1F72664EC&lf=plpp_play_all 15 Questions Evolutionists STILL can't answer!]

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kZvzbhWK0c 15 questions evolutionists hate: Live dialogue]

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0h2XYXff64 15 questions evolutionists hate (Live chat session)]

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcLlVg06fFQ New discoveries disprove evolution]

==How did life originate?==
''Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.” Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, “we don’t really know how life originated on this planet”. A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form. So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?''

===What an evolutionist would say===
Darwin's 1859 book was called [[On the Origin of Species|On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life]], not '''On the Origin of Life''', his theory didn't cover the very beginnings of life, but what happened when speciation started.

Similarly, we have helpful physical theories about the behavior of objects in the universe, though we there is debate about the creation of the universe...

There are well-understood processes by which the chemicals present in the environment of the ancient earth could have combined into peptides, and eventually into self-catalyzing proteins that gave rise to DNA and unicellular organisms. This is the theory of abiogenesis, a relatively new branch of science distinct from evolutionary biology. As stated above, the theory of evolution does not say anything about how the first lifeforms formed, only how they developed afterwards.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 15:55, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::Agreed, the origin of life is a biochemical question--not really an evolutionary biology one. --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 12:36, 21 January 2012 (EST)

::::That said, most of modern biology consists of biochemical questions, including the major mechanisms underlying evolution, so the question on the origin of life is not an inappropriate one here. To answer it, I must first address an idea that I've heard quoted by creationists addressing this question in the links provided by User:Conservative. That is the common misconception that the current scientific consensus suggests that life started as self-replicating polypeptides. In light of evidence uncovered in the past couple decades, this hypothesis is now considered highly unlikely; the process that would become "life" was likely already started before the "primordial amino acid soup" came into play. Self-replicating polydeoxyribonucleotides (DNA strands), are also considered an unlikely because of the chemical characteristics of DNA. Self-replicating strands of RNA, on the other hand, can be randomly generated in a laboratory using common, non-biological, reagents. This is a far-cry from the long-discredited Miller-Urey experiment (their experimental conditions turned out to be a wildly incorrect reproduction of the early Earth), that found organic molecules in a solution zapped with electricity. Besides, complex organic molecules seem to form spontaneously (albeit in trace amounts) wherever the right elemental ingredients are present; that's the age-old rule of organic chemistry, if a side reaction '''can''' happen, it '''will''' happen to some degree.

::::Life is chemistry, very complex chemistry, but it is still chemistry. The components of a cell consist of biomolecules behaving in a chemical way (drugs are designed to take advantage of this fact). Barring any philosophical discussion on the meaning of life (for the last time, '''the answer to life, the universe, and everything is 42'''), the purpose of a cell (or a complex organism consisting of a vast network of cells) is to reproduce. Self-reproduction is one of the defining traits of life. Ribonucleotides (present in trace amounts wherever the ingredients are found) will spontaneously form 5' to 3' polymers in a warm, reducing, aqueous environment; such as that found around the edges of a hot-spring (assuming a low oxygen atmosphere, which is unanimously suggested for the early Earth by geological data), or even an oceanic thermal vent. That one or more of these oligomers would have the enzymatic capacity to self-replicate is extremely plausible. When considering the scale (an entire planet), it becomes probable.

::::How these self-reproducing RNA strands started conspiring with amino acids, became compartmentalized in phospholipids, and then started using a DNA template, is still largely unknown. It is thought that these changes occurred in the order I just mentioned because that is the most chemically plausible order of events; although a plausible scenario is still very far from an established theory. As more evidence becomes available, as more experiments are done, and as geology reveals more information about the chemistry of the early Earth, it is likely that the scientific community will arrive at more of a consensus regarding the origin of life. Obviously, nobody was there to witness the origin of life and, unless the NSF allocates grant money towards a 1981 DeLorean, a conjectural consensus (that is well-supported by all the evidence) will be the closest that science can come to providing an answer to this question. This does not mean that scientists "don't know"; in the absence of first-hand observation,an inference from evidence is the closest that the scientific process can come to explaining anything.

::::There is evidence that much of the Old Testament (after Genesis) is a historically accurate, if poetically embellished (as all histories were at the time), account of bronze-age Jewish history. Archaeological evidence supports this and so science supports this. However, it is a non sequitur to conclude that because ''some'' Old Testament stories are grounded in historical fact that ''all'' Old Testament stories are literally true--even St. Paul admits that this is a matter of faith (and open to interpretation), not evidence. To draw an analogy, Livy, a Roman historian, wrote a lengthy account of the history of the Roman people. Much of this account is very historically accurate and is supported as such by archaeological evidence. However, it is very clearly illogical to conclude that because Livy's historical narrative is largely true, his references to the Roman gods playing a hand in these events must be true as well. Similarly science, which by definition can ''only'' rely on empirical evidence, must search outside of scripture for evidence regarding the origin of life and draw conclusions based on evidence alone. --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 03:24, 25 January 2012 (EST)

::::: Very well argued. Can you provide a link to something showing that RNA can be randomly generated in a lab? It'd be interesting to read. Thanks :) - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 02:18, 9 March 2012 (EST)

:::::::[http://www.horizonpress.com/cimb/v/v2/v2n102.pdf Happily]! --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 23:42, 9 March 2012 (EST)
::::::::::[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22551009 Here's a better source that I just came across.]--[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 21:10, 1 November 2012 (EDT)

===What a creationist would reply===
The only experiments done to test these ASSUMPTIONS were fatally flawed by bad data about the so-called "ancient Earth." Not even evolutionists take them seriously now. If this were true, new species should be rising from the ocean every day, but we see none. [[User:OllieB|OllieB]] 10:39, 27 March 2012 (EDT)

==How did the DNA code originate?==
''The code is a sophisticated language system with letters and words where the meaning of the words is unrelated to the chemical properties of the letters—just as the information on this page is not a product of the chemical properties of the ink (or pixels on a screen). What other coding system has existed without intelligent design? How did the DNA coding system arise without it being created?''

===What an evolutionist would say===
DNA is not a code, which is encoded information intentionally transmitted by an intelligent agent. The "information" present in DNA is the result of natural selection, which screens out DNA sequences unsuited to reproduction and increases the frequency of those which are useful. The result is a highly complex molecule capable of a large variety of functions, but it is still a chemical, obeying the laws of physics and chemistry in a highly predictable way.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 15:55, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::TonyPark is right again! There is no such thing as the "DNA code" (at least Dan Brown hasn't published it yet). A cell is a biochemical system, similar to how a car is a mechanical system. Actually, if examined closely, most biochemical systems are remarkably mechanical in function. The set of biomolecular actions in any cell, while they may seem quite complex, are actually quite predictable once they are well understood. This is one of the driving principles in modern cell biology, molecular biology, developmental biology, pharmacology, medicine (notably oncology), bioinformatics, and every other field (there are hundreds) that deals with functional genomics, proteomics, or metabolism.

::Genes are referred to as "information", even studied as information (bioinformatics), because that is a convenient way to model and discuss a very complex system. The article on [[genes]] here at Conservapedia is actually pretty well written (when I have time, I do want to tweak a couple minor points in that article, but that is something I will discuss on that article's talk page), I would encourage anybody reading this argument to read that article first if they are unfamiliar with the terms I am going to use.

::In the context of this question (and the "answers" posted by CMI), "DNA code" is a very arbitrarily defined term. The trouble is that the interactions between DNA and the biomolecular mediators of cellular homeostasis (the processes that maintain the tightly controlled cellular microenvironment) are quite complex. It is a gross oversimplification (in fact, it is incorrect) to say that DNA ''only'' functions as a "template" to be transcribed into mRNA and then translated into protein. It is true that a similar-sounding term, "genetic code", refers to triplets of bases (codons) encoding for particular amino acids in a protein product. However, there is a lot more that goes into regulating cell processes than blind protein production. Gene expression is a very tightly regulated process ensuring that only the right cells express the right genes at the right time (for a good example of when this goes wrong, see [[cancer]]). This regulation is highly mechanical. To avoid launching into a lengthy discussion of gene regulatory mechanisms, I will leave the point at that.

::Accordingly, I will give the authors of this question the benefit of the doubt and interpret "DNA code" to mean the sum of homeostatic regulation via direct and indirect biomolecular interactions with DNA. On the whole, this question is so broad in scope that it ''is'' impossible to properly answer without several thousand pages of text. To illustrate this point, I have a five volume reference book on my bookshelf that summarizes most of the human biomolecular signalling pathways that were known when it was published (2006); in total, the book is 5300 pages long. Given the pace with which biomedical scientists are unraveling the human interactome, a 2011 edition would need to be '''at least''' twice as long (and require a giant team of very masochistic editors). The simple fact here is that '''every''' chemical process within the cell can (and does) elicit some downstream effect on gene regulation. Therefore, one cannot even ''functionally'' explain the "DNA code" without also explaining every last scrap of chemistry that goes on in a cell. Similarly, thoroughly explaining its origin would require tracing the phylogeny of several hundred thousand individual processes.

::While creationists may rejoice at the "impossibility" of this question, science is not at all clueless about the evolutionary origin of many of the more central parts in this system. Quite the contrary actually. For instance, the evolutionary origin of introns in eukaryotic genes from ancient self-splicing bacterial transposable elements (which seem to have been retroviral in origin) is practically an air-tight case. The highly conserved sequence homology among members of the most common families of transcription factors (proteins that directly interact with DNA to regulate genes) also strongly hints at the existence of a common root at the base of each family "tree". An even better example is the remarkably high level of homology between the transcriptional machinery in all extant lineages of life. Similarly, there is the striking homology in translational machinery. In fact, sequencing of ribosomal RNAs (which are under quite a bit of selective pressure to stay '''very''' static) is a very accurate way to estimate ancestral relationships--oh, and for most clades examined, the "newfangled" rRNA data suggests ancestral relationships that are very similar to (and in plants and animals, often identical to) those suggested by older techniques based on phenotype. All the examples that I just gave are evidence of the common descent of the gene regulatory / expression machinery. Clearly, without going back to the origin of life itself (which is an impossibility), explaining the evolutionary origin of the obscure <s>creationist invention</s> concept that is the "DNA code" is fundamentally impossible. However, just because scientists can not precisely trace every last bit of cellular machinery all the way back to the origin of life (which is the rather disingenuous implication of this question), does not mean that that the scientific community is at a loss for evidence from which to make logical inferences about its approximate naturalistic origin.

::Like question number 1, question 2 ignores the fundamental principles of the scientific process; conclusions and hypotheses regarding an un-observable process must strictly rely on logical consideration of the available evidence. The sound practice of science (which, I might add, is meticulously ingrained in any scientist-in-training and '''very''' strictly enforced by peer review) requires that evidence is objectively interpreted as only speaking for itself, independent of presupposition or ideological dogma. Science is not about searching for evidence in support of a particular hypothesis; in fact, it is about seeking evidence which contradicts the working hypothesis, so that the working hypothesis may be further refined. It is for this simple reason that "creation science", by relying on the '''presupposition''' of divine creation, is not science. A scientific theory, such as evolution or relativity is not a presupposition (as will be claimed in a couple later questions), rather it is a logical paradigm that is compatible with the hypotheses suggested by the available evidence. Scientific theories are, by definition, fluid logical paradigms; when the evidence suggests a paradoxical conclusion, the theory (not the conclusion) is adjusted to accommodate the new finding. --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 13:41, 25 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===
The existence of the four genetic bases, AGTC, and the fact that they fit together like puzzle pieces with the correct counterpart molecule, is evidence for intelligent design. If DNA were truly random, we would see adenine binding with guanine, thiamine and cytosine in roughly equal numbers, but instead there is a non-random pattern that indicates an intelligent creator. [[User:OllieB|OllieB]] 10:43, 27 March 2012 (EDT)

==How could mutations—accidental copying mistakes (DNA ‘letters’ exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc.)—create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things?==
''How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist? There is information for how to make proteins but also for controlling their use—much like a cookbook contains the ingredients as well as the instructions for how and when to use them. One without the other is useless. Mutations are known for their destructive effects, including over 1,000 human diseases such as hemophilia. Rarely are they even helpful. But how can scrambling existing DNA information create a new biochemical pathway or nano-machines with many components, to make ‘goo-to-you’ evolution possible? E.g., How did a 32-component rotary motor like ATP synthase (which produces the energy currency, ATP, for all life), or robots like kinesin (a ‘postman’ delivering parcels inside cells) originate?''

===What an evolutionist would say===
DNA mutations alone cannot drive evolution. This is why "living fossils" do not evolve; they are in an environment with little to no selection pressure on them because they are so well adapted. As a result, the animals change very little over time, aside from a small amount of random genetic drift.

When natural selection is added to the equation, there is a mechanism by which good mutations can be screened from bad ones, and a mechanism for gene frequencies to change in a way that allows a species to slowly adapt to their environment. Not all mutations are beneficial, obviously, but the environment punishes bad DNA very quickly, and after billions of years life has become very sophisticated, even on the smallest scales.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 12:18, 13 January 2012 (EST)

::Yet another very well-worded answer. Mr. Park, you are a tough act to follow!

::Seriously, what is the deal with the creationist obsession with mutating genes? Seriously, the idea that changing the genes is a major driving force of evolution pre-dates the understanding of how genes work. There are plenty of other ('''much''' more common and interesting) ways to generate phenotypic variation within a population. In the past three decades, advances in population genetics, combined with a veritable revolution in the fields of molecular biology and developmental biology, have demonstrated that. In other words, referencing the breakthroughs that have resulted from the new-found understanding of the molecular mechanisms of evolution, '''"This ain't your daddy's Darwin!"'''

::But first, because the question insists, I will address the boring stuff.

::Genes duplicate, entire sections of chromosomes, and sometimes even whole chromosomes, or sets of chromosomes, can be duplicated or even fused. Sometimes, just a portion of a gene is duplicated, or maybe even swapped with a part from a different gene. On a smaller scale, errors in DNA replication, among other factors, can cause single base pairs in DNA to be changed (this is called a "single nucleotide polymorphism" or a SNP--pronounced "Snip"), deleted, or inserted. Sometimes, it's a transposable element (chunks of DNA that like to move around in the genome--a lot) that inserts in the middle of an exon. Or maybe even an endogenous retrovirus that's still intact enough to move around finding itself in between two enhancer elements for an essential gene. Chromosomes are not static structures either. High school biology was only partially right when they taught you that recombination occurs between homologous chromosomes during meiosis; as it turns out, non-homologous chromosomes trade parts too sometimes (quite often, actually, on an evolutionary time scale). In short, on the scale of hundreds of millions of years, the genome has more in common with Mardis Gras in New Orleans than it does with a leather-bound book.

::On the genomic level, when and where mutations occur is largely random. The vast majority of mutations have no effect whatsoever on phenotype. However, when a mutation does affect phenotype, whether or not it survives to be present in future populations is not random. Any genomic change that increases an organism's ability to reproduce efficiently, will gradually become increasingly prevalent in subsequent generations because the more-efficiently reproducing individuals generate more offspring. Alternatively, if a variation impairs the ability of an individual to reproduce efficiently, then that variation will become less prevalent in subsequent generations because the individuals carrying it will produce proportionately fewer offspring. This seemingly obvious observation '''is''' natural selection. To say that a trait is "selected against" simply means that it has a deleterious effect on the relative reproductive potential of the individuals carrying it.

::Random mutations generate novel allelic variations within a population, and the sieve of reproduction keeps the randomly-occurring harmful variations from being present in future populations while at the same time amplifying the number of individuals carrying favorable variations. The net result of this process is anything but random.

::That said, ecosystems change, natural disasters happen, geological events happen, new organisms colonize an ecosystem and disrupt the food chain. An allele that was beneficial in one generation, may be quite deleterious four generations later. But, when that happens, selective pressure shifts and individuals carrying the now-harmful allele are out-reproduced by individuals who are better adapted to the new conditions--thus the allelic composition of the population shifts again. Repeating a similar cycle over hundreds of generations will result in a population that is, by and large, phenotypically different (sometimes quite dramatically) from the original population. Repeat the cycle over tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, or millions, of generations, and add in a whole host of other possible random events that favor or cause a redistribution of allele frequencies over the generations, and the end population will have changed drastically from the original population.

::Now for the fun stuff. The regions of important genes that encode for important proteins are under quite a bit of selective pressure to change as little as possible over the generations; a random mutation in one those regions would be so harmful to the reproductive ability of the individuals carrying it that it is not likely to persist in a population for more than a few generations (assuming it's not lethal to the original carrier, in which case it would not even be present in one). As such, mutations in functional protein coding genes are not a major driving force of phenotypic change across generations. This is why the fruit fly makes a good model for human genetics--the superfluous regions of the genes (that, say, encode for parts of proteins where the amino acid sequence is largely inconsequential) have diverged quite a bit, but the important parts have stayed the same over the hundreds of millions of years since the last common ancestor between the fruit fly and the human. They have retained this "homology" because any changes in those regions was very strongly selected against.

::So what is the major cause of morphological change? Among closely related species (and, yes, for the purpose of this explanation humans are '''very''' closely related to mice), the major genetic differences underlying morphological variation are not in the protein-coding regions of the genes themselves, but in the promoter (regulatory) regions of these genes. Mutating an essential component gene that is essential to normal embryonic development is going to result in a dead embryo--not a reproductively viable organism. However, subtly adjusting the "on/off" switch of such a gene, and tweaking its expression pattern (which cells express a given gene), will both allow the organism to grow to reproductive viability, and produce a morphological change. If individuals with this new morphological change are able reproduce more efficiently than individuals without it, it will become increasingly prevalent in future generations.

::As for how new genetic information is added (by which, I assume, you mean the emergence of new protein-coding genes), we return to the hustle and bustle of the chromosomes. Gene duplication events are very common. When an organism only has one or two (depending on the nature of the gene and the mutation) copies of an important gene to play with, significant changes will be very strongly selected against. When a gene is randomly duplicated, the organism now has a spare copy--and may accrue mutations in one of the copies of that gene without seriously impacting its reproductive potential. As mutations accumulate in the copy of the gene that is now freed from negative selective pressure, it will most likely just wind up as a useless (junk) sequence in the genomic junkyard (there are thousands of such non-functional duplicate-gene remnants in the human genome). If, however, as its sequence diverges from that of its "functional" copy, its mechanical function (or expression pattern, or both) changes in such a way that it provides a survival benefit to the organism carrying it, individuals carrying the divergent copy (now a new gene in its own right) will be selected for in subsequent generations and progressively more beneficial allelic variations of the new gene will be selected for.

::Similarly, when a large segment of a chromosome is duplicated, every new duplicate gene contained in that segment is entered into the "new gene lottery", for a chance to become new (repurposed) genetic information. This too is a fairly common occurrence, especially when there is a lot of selective pressure for novel adaptation.

::Evolution has been a '''long''' road. It's taken 4 billion years for gene duplication, sequence divergence, random catastrophes, population events, and the cut-throat race for reproductive viability to lead to life as we know it today. --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 20:00, 9 June 2012 (EDT)

::::[[Hardy Weinberg equilibrium]] is a model for what the genes of a living thing would be if they did not evolve. In this model, forces that change genetic frequency, such as mutations, genetic recombination, and so on, would have no effect. This concretely means that if a population has Hardy Weinberg equilibrium, and if, say, fifty percent of the individuals having one allele (alleles are versions of a gene) and fifty percent has another, then over, say, a thousand generations, fifty percent would still have one allele and fifty percent the other.

::::Experiments testing whether this equilibrium exists have been conducted for decades, and the result is that the frequency of alleles in a population change from generation to generation, and they change tremendously over large spans of time because mutations, genetic recombination, genetic drift, and other factors all make tiny changes in genes in individuals.

::::That withstanding, when individuals in a species pass their genes from generation to generation, it's easily to fathom that tiny observeable changes in alleles mean observeable changes in species over massive spans of time. [[User:PabloAbra|PabloAbra]] 18:15, 9 February 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===
If genetic mutations were beneficial even 1% of the time, we would see people developing new abilities and new body parts all the time. Instead, we only see people with serious birth defects and disabilities due to genetic mutation. Mutations are entropy affecting the ordered system of DNA, and only intelligent intervention could have brought that order about in the first place. [[User:OllieB|OllieB]] 10:49, 27 March 2012 (EDT)

==Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as ‘evolution’, as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life?==
''By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process. It might explain the survival of the fittest (why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments), but not the arrival of the fittest (where the genes and creatures came from in the first place). The death of individuals not adapted to an environment and the survival of those that are suited does not explain the origin of the traits that make an organism adapted to an environment. E.g., how do minor back-and-forth variations in finch beaks explain the origin of beaks or finches? How does natural selection explain goo-to-you evolution? ''

===What an evolutionist would say===
''By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process.'' What definition is that? Of course, selecting can be a creative process! A sculptor selects the pieces of marble which have to be chipped of...

Most evolutionists - I think - would subscribe to the sentence: ''It might explain why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments, but not where the genes and creatures came from in the first place!''

In addition, in no science classroom is natural selection taught as the entirety of evolution. This is a misconception resulting from the phrase "Survival of the fittest" being used to describe evolution. The other half of the equation is genetic mutation, which provides new material, so to speak, to be vetted by the natural selection process.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:04, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::Natural selection is not synonymous with evolution. Nobody who properly understands how evolution works would teach it as such; there would be no purpose in doing so other than to deliberately prevent the students from understanding the intricacies of the evolutionary process. Natural selection '''is''' the major driving force of evolution, but it not the same thing as evolution. No competent teacher would present them as the same thing. --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 23:03, 26 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===
This is an example of evolutionists "moving the goalposts," so to speak. Natural selection was considered an adequate explanation for evolution until ID pointed out the flaws of that theory. Instead of humbly accepting that their theory is flawed, however, evolutionists merely claim that their theory never said such a thing, and give a new contrived guess at what evolution is. [[User:OllieB|OllieB]] 10:52, 27 March 2012 (EDT)

==How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?==
'' Every pathway and nano-machine requires multiple protein/enzyme components to work. How did lucky accidents create even one of the components, let alone 10 or 20 or 30 at the same time, often in a necessary programmed sequence. Evolutionary biochemist Franklin Harold wrote, “we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”''

===What an evolutionist would say===

Biochemical pathways do not arise out of nothing; they are built over millions of years, piece by piece, adding new functions as they become useful and dropping functions as they become superfluous. These pathways are, like all of DNA, merely chemical reactions, obeying well understood laws, and provide some function to an organism at every level of complexity. Natural selection allowed new variations on old pathways to be tried, and if they succeeded, propagated.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:09, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::If you piece apart the chemical pathways, it is a given that losing a small part of that pathway will render it useless. However, incomplete parts of that pathway can serve different purposes inside the body, meaning that they still have a reason to be selected for.

::This argument is not unlike the flagellum argument, with the mousetrap analogy; a mousetrap will not work if it's missing a part. However, you can use the pieces of a mousetrap for other purposes than catching mice. Furthermore, a few of flagellum's parts serve other purposes in the body.

::The argument that a chemical pathway's complexity makes it impossible to produce by evolution relies on the assumption that every part of a chemical pathway is entirely useless unless every part is present. However, the body does not exist in a vacuum and countless import chemicals in the body serve multiple purposes. [[User:PabloAbra|PabloAbra]] 18:26, 9 February 2012

===What a creationist would reply===

==Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?==
''Richard Dawkins wrote, “biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.” Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, wrote, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” The problem for evolutionists is that living things show too much design. Who objects when an archaeologist says that pottery points to human design? Yet if someone attributes the design in living things to a designer, that is not acceptable. Why should science be restricted to naturalistic causes rather than logical causes?''

===What an evolutionist would say===
The appearance of design in natural phenomena is not proof of design, just as seeing a face in a cloud or a piece of rock does not indicate that it is designed. The only "designer" necessary to explain the diversity of life on Earth is the combination of DNA mutation, to create new genetic material, and natural selection, to screen out harmful mutations from the new material.

What we see as "designed" structures and organs are in fact the result of an evolutionary process, without any kind of plan or input besides the environment killing off any variants that don't confer enough of a reproductive advantage.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:17, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::Who cares? The potential existence of a designer doesn't have anything to do with the potential existence of evolution. The evolutionary mechanisms in question tend to rely on numbers, on the probability that a mutation will happen here, that random mating will pair this chromosome with that, that genetic drift will change one allele percentage to another. If these numbers are driven by an almighty force, it doesn't change the mechanisms themselves. As far as I'm concerned, this question is thus irrelevant to the debate. [[User:PabloAbra|PabloAbra]] 18:38, 9 February 2012

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did multi-cellular life originate?==
''How did cells adapted to individual survival ‘learn’ to cooperate and specialize (including undergoing programmed cell death) to create complex plants and animals?''

===What an evolutionist would say===

Like our cells, bacteria use chemical signals to communicate with each other, and in large numbers are capable of cooperation in creating structures and solving problems of resource gathering. The ability to cooperate, and eventually form multi-cell colonies and then multicellular organisms, would have conferred a massive survival advantage to the first bacteria who developed the trait. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:24, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did sex originate?==
''Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as much reproductive success (‘fitness’) for the same resources as sexual reproduction, so how could the latter ever gain enough advantage to be selected? And how could mere physics and chemistry invent the complementary apparatuses needed at the same time (non-intelligent processes cannot plan for future coordination of male and female organs).''

===What an evolutionist would say===

Sexual reproduction provides a huge evolutionary advantage by increasing the genetic diversity of offspring, and therefore increasing the rate of evolution. This is why almost all of the complex organisms on Earth reproduce sexually. Even some bacteria have been shown to have "sex", in the sense of exchanging DNA information in order to produce offspring with a combination of both organisms' genes.

The complex sexual specialization we see today in animals did not arise randomly; it is not as though male and female versions of animals evolved separately, by sheer luck. They have existed together since almost the very beginning of life. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:36, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===
If sexual reproduction is such a huge evolutionary advantage, how is it that there still exist so many species which reproduce asexually ? If it is a huge advantage, we would expect to see every organisms evolve in this direction, wouldn't we ? [[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]]

No, we most certainly would not. Just because a trait is advantageous does not mean every organism will independently develop it. Your argument could be applied to the traits of flight, intelligence, or any other advantageous trait to equally absurd results. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 17:36, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:I don't follow your reasoning.
:*You say that sexual reproduction is a huge advantage
:*You say that Evolution is based upon natural selection
:*Therefore, Evolution should favor species with sexual reproduction and natural selection should wipe out those who do not reproduce sexually.
:I did not mean that every organisms should have independently develop it but that the organisms which do not reproduce sexually should have been replaced by others who have this huge advantage. I appreciate that you talk about ''absurd results'', I agree with you on that point.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 17:58, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:I think what User:TonyPark is trying to get at is that sexual reproduction is advantageous to MOST organisms. Some species may get along quite well with asexual reproduction, and hence have no reason to change. --[[User:RedGoliath?|RedGoliath]] 23:07, 12 January 2012 (GMT)
::I can understand how flying or intelligence might be an advantage to some species and not others but how is it possible that genetic diversity (as you presented the advantage) can ''not'' be advantageous to some species ?--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 18:24, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::As the question implied: sexual reproduction comes at a price! For complicated beings is seems to be worth the costs, for very simple not. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:31, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:::It's an interesting subject, though often coming up with reasonable hypotheses can be difficult. The Komodo Dragon comes to mind, however, as a species that breeds both sexually and asexually, depending on its conditions. This is seen in a number of other species, including some bacteria. Obviously, this has it's advantages: If a females cannot find a mate, she can asexually reproduce.
As for species that only reproduce asexually, there may be no selection pressure that requires more diverse offspring. An advantage of asexual reproduction is that it occurs much quicker than sexual reproduction for obvious reasons. There are likely other advantages to asexual rep., but nothing that I can think of at this moment in time --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 23:42, January 2012 (GMT)

It is advantageous to every species, but that doesn't mean that every asexual species is going to die out, only that they won't probably do as well as sexual species do over a period of time. This holds to be true in most environments, where almost all complex forms of life are sexual, and the asexual species are comparatively simpler in structure. Don't forget that asexual creatures do evolve and adapt, just slower.

Side question: Don't you think a scientist somewhere might have already thought of that question and answered it? I ask myself that about most of these 15 questions.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 18:56, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::::Alright, the 3 of you made a good case here. Now, please explain me how it began? Was it only 1 individual mutation? If so who did it reproduce with ?--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 20:50, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:::::Bacteria commonly share information from one to the other using plasmids. This is seen in how some bacteria can become resistant to antibiotics. Though I have no actual evidence to support it(I didn't google) it seems logical to me that this was the beginning of sexual reproduction. I'm not terribly knowledgeable about evolutionary biology but this seems to be the earliest form of pseudo-sexual reproduction and it obviously came about due to a need for genetic variation in the species since, as is known, asexual reproduction does not provide variation. That is the extent of my knowledge of that so if anyone else knows more about plasmids and how they developed it would be wonderful. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 21:17, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::::::We should also remember that one of the biggest sources of gene exchange among bacteria, besides plasmids, is in fact bacteriophage viruses. They can infect one bacteria and ferry genetic material from it to another bacteria, and something like 70% of ocean-dwelling bacteria on earth today are in fact infected with a bacteriophage of some kind. So, to answer your question, PhilipN, it is possible for only one bacteria to have developed the trait, but if that bacteria was infected with a virus, as most are, those genes would have been spread to other bacteria in the vicinity, giving them the ability to reproduce sexually as well.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 12:17, 13 January 2012 (EST)

:::::"Who did it produce with?" - Your question presupposes that there had to be two distinct sexes. My following point will be an educated guess. It may not be right, but it's just an example of how the different sexes could have occured.
:::::If you take a look at flowers, you'll find that each flower has both male and female reproductive organs. This is pretty much universal over all plant species. Animals on the other hand, tend to have distinct males and females (at least, most vertebrates). This would imply that the separate reproductive organs were present before plants and animals diverged from a common ancestor. The common ancestor would likely have both pairs of organs, as plants do today. Plants, perhaps, never lost this trait. However, at some point after the divergance, animals became distinctly male and female (again, at least in vertebrates).
:::::As you know, organisms need energy, and the more body parts and organs you have, the more energy you require. Could it be that in animals, organisms in a species started to become specialised for which organs they used? In half of a population, the female rep. organs were slightly reduced, and vice versa. This would mean that the organisms required less energy. They would all still have both pairs of organs, but one would be reduced. Soon, two sexes would form, as one type of sexual organ would have been reduced/lost in each group.
:::::Again, this is not fact, merely my suggestion. Add to it if you wish, or point out how this would be wrong/unlikely. Hope this helps.
:::::--[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 17:26, 13 January 2012 (GMT)

==Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?==
''Darwin noted the problem and it still remains. The evolutionary family trees in textbooks are based on imagination, not fossil evidence. Famous Harvard paleontologist (and evolutionist), Stephen Jay Gould, wrote, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology”. Other evolutionist fossil experts also acknowledge the problem.''
===What an evolutionist would say===

The term "transitional fossil" is not used outside of creationist discussion. Every fossil is a transitional fossil, just as every animal is a transitional form, from what they were in the past to what they will be in the future. The term is usually used to describe fossils with traits from two different taxons, such as Archaeopteryx or Tiktaalik, but it is important to remember that taxonomic categories are human inventions, and there is nothing essentially different about one of these "intermediate" forms and other fossils in other stages of evolution.

In addition, the theory of evolution was formulated by studying animal anatomy, without the benefit of fossil evidence. Though fossil evidence has bolstered and improved the theory, it is not the only, or even the primary, source of evolutionary data. That distinction falls on DNA sequencing, which has provided huge amounts of data to scientists with a level of precision that Darwin could not have dreamed of.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 16:48, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame?==
''Professor Gould wrote, “the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.”''

===What an evolutionist would say===

DNA mutations alone cannot drive evolution. It is necessary that the environment exert some kind of natural selection pressure on the organism for evolution to occur. This is why "living fossils" do not evolve; they are in an environment with little to no selection pressure on them because they are so well adapted. As a result, the animals change very little over time, aside from a small amount of random genetic drift.

In addition, the statement that evolution has turned "worms into humans" is inaccurate. It would be more accurate to say that evolution has turned a small colony of bacteria in a pool of ooze into the entire majestic diversity of life on Earth. This is more impressive, as well.

===What a creationist would reply===

==How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?==
''If everything evolved, and we invented God, as per evolutionary teaching, what purpose or meaning is there to human life? Should students be learning nihilism (life is meaningless) in science classes?''
===What an evolutionist would say===
Evolutionary says nothing about the existence of god, nor does it advocate nihilism or any other philosophical stance. The potential philosophical implications of the theory of evolution can be an interesting topic, but is not relevant to a scientific debate.

It should be noted that there are plenty of Christians who believe in evolution and have no such crisis of faith.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 20:45, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated?==
''Evolutionists often use flexible story-telling to ‘explain’ observations contrary to evolutionary theory. NAS(USA) member Dr Philip Skell wrote, “Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.”''
===What an evolutionist would say===

"Just so storytelling" is not a defined term, and is most likely a completely subjective snarl word used to denigrate any scientific theory the asker doesn't agree with. The question is vague in wording, disingenuous in its intent and pointoess to answer, because the asker has already decided that evolution is a fairy tale sight unseen.

===What a creationist would reply===

==Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?==
''Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”9 Dr Skell wrote, “It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers … .”10 Evolution actually hinders medical discovery.11 Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind?''
===What an evolutionist would say===
This is an appeal to authority. The truth of evolution is in whether or not it explains the diversity of life, not whether a Harvard professor approves of it. This question uses quote mining to misrepresent the attitudes of scientists, but it is not relevant to a debate of whether or not evolution is true.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 17:00, 12 January 2012 (EST)

On a more important point: the breakthrough of evolution is the theory itself, and all of the knowledge about the natural world that we gain from it. That knowledge is used to help deal with drug-resistant bacteria, breed new types of plants and find human analogues for biomedical research, to name only a few applications. However, even if there were no "breakthroughs" from evolutionary theory, it would still be one of humanity's greatest triumphs, because it explains how life as we know it came into being, and that knowledge enriches us in ways that cannot be adequately measured.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 11:50, 13 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science?==
''You cannot do experiments, or even observe what happened, in the past. Asked if evolution has been observed, Richard Dawkins said, “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”''

===What an evolutionist would say===
*There are experiments: e.g., [[Richard Lenski]]'s experiments on the [[e-coli]] [[bacterium]], which got some attention in 2008.
*[[Astronomy]] is equally a science about history, the history of stars. We can't plan experiments on a galactic scale, but we can observe the experiments of nature.

Obviously, it is impoosible to observe events that occurred before the dawn of history, or indded at any point in the past. It is by studying the evidence left behind that we can draw conclusions as to what has occurred. This is the same epistemological basis behind history, archaeology and even crime scene investigation. It is disingenuous to assert that nothing can be learned about the past unless a direct eyewitness account survives.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 17:24, 12 January 2012 (EST)

===What a creationist would reply===

==Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes?==
''Karl Popper, famous philosopher of science, said “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical [religious] research programme ….”Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.” If “you can’t teach religion in science classes”, why is evolution taught?''
===What an evolutionist would say===
Evolution is not a religion, and to call it one is ridiculous. It has no prayers, no churches, and no dogma. Proponents of evolution come from every faith background. The asker of this question is misleading the audience by forcing the assumption that evolution is a dogmatic belief system and not what it properly is, a highly respected scientific theory that explains and unifies a huge amount of evidence collected over many years by thousands of scientists working in a startlingly wide array of fields. The question also implies that dogmatic ideas that don't explain the evidence have no place in science classrooms, a sentiment I agree with. By those criteria, intelligent design should be discarded post-haste.

===What a creationist would reply===
[[Category:Debate]]

Ribozyme

2012-11-02T01:03:10Z

JHunter: added references

Ribozyme

2012-11-02T00:15:53Z

JHunter: saving progress again

A '''ribozyme''' is a [[RNA|polyribonucleotide]] (RNA molecule) with [[enzyme|enzymatic]] activity. They are sometimes also referred to as "RNA enzymes" however, to avoid confusion with [[ribonucleoprotein|ribonucleoproteins]] in which the RNA lacks catalytic activity, "ribozyme" is generally preferred.

Ribozymes have been found in every known cell and are essential to cell functioning. The most well known example of an essential ribozyme is the 28S rRNA (called the 23S rRNA in [[prokaryotes]]), which carries out the aminoacyltransferase (peptide-lengthening) activity of [[ribosome|ribosomes]].

==Structure and Function==

Similar to [[proteins]], RNAs derive their function from their structure. The ''primary structure'' of an RNA refers to its sequence, which allows the RNA to adopt local conformational structures (e.g. RNA hairpins), these ''secondary structures'' give the RNA molecule an overall ''tertiary structure''. For RNAs that function in a complex, either with proteins or other RNAs or both, the structure of the complex is called ''quaternary structure''.

The catalytic site (or sites) of a ribozyme function in a similar manner to the active sites of protein [[enzyme|enzymes]]. They lower the ΔG‡ ([[Gibbs energy]]) of a chemical reaction by binding to the substrates in a manner that makes the reaction more energetically favorable. Also like protein enzymes, many ribozymes require [[cofactors]] (e.g. Mg2+) in order to function properly.

==Examples==

===28S rRNA===

The '''28S rRNA''' (the 23S rRNA in [[prokaryotes]]) is a [[rRNA|ribosomal RNA]]. It is the part of the ''large subunit'' of a [[ribosome]] that catalyzes [[peptide bond]] formation between amino acids during protein synthesis.

Notably, the antibiotic [[chloramphenicol]] works by inhibiting the aminoacyltransferase activity of the bacterial 23S rRNA.

===Self-splicing introns===

Self-splicing [[introns]] in a nascent RNA transcript are ribozymes that excise themselves without the need for [[spliceosome|spliceosomal]] machinery.

Although self-splicing introns are relatively rare in [[eukaryote|eukaryotic]] genes, they are the only types of introns found in the few bacterial protein-coding genes that contain introns. Self-splicing introns appear to have originated in ancient [[retrovirus|retroviruses]]. Furthermore, the remarkable sequence homology between bacterial and eukaryotic self-splicing introns is considered a major piece of evidence for the common origin of introns in both [[domain (biology)|domains]].

===RNase P===

'''RNase P''' is a ribozyme with ribonuclease (RNA cutting) activity found in all known forms of cellular life. It is responsible for processing precursor-tRNAs as well as precursors to some other functional RNAs within the cell.

===The spliceosome (hypothesized)===

In eukaryotes, the [[spliceosome]] is the ribonucleoprotein complex that [[RNA processing|removes]] the intronic sequences from most precursor-mRNAs. While it has not historically been considered a ribozyme, recent experimental evidence suggests that it might be. Researchers are currently investigating this possibility.

==Origin of Life Debate==

Ribozymes are currently a centerpiece in the ongoing debate on the origin of life. The ability of some RNA polymerizing ribozymes to synthesize functional products without the need for a [[DNA]] template (they use an RNA template instead) makes RNA an attractive candidate for hypothetical primitive [[biochemistry]]. There is a growing body of chemical, [[molecular biology|molecular biological]], and [[geology|geological]] evidence which supports this hypothesis. Additionally, the recent development of a self-replicating ribozyme derived from a viral ribozyme, demonstrates that self-replicating RNAs ''can'' exist. However, the evidence remains largely circumstantial as nothing conclusive has been found thus far.

This hypothesis that life originated from RNA and ribonucleoprotein based biochemistry is called the ''RNA world hypothesis''. It is considered by many biochemists to be the most plausible current hypothesis for the origin of life. Research investigating this possibility is currently ongoing.

==References==

<references/>

Ribozyme

2012-11-01T23:40:43Z

JHunter: /* Examples */ saving progress again

Ribozyme

2012-11-01T23:20:07Z

JHunter: saving progress again, still expanding article

Talk:RNA

2012-11-01T22:09:50Z

JHunter: wow

== 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)

==Wow==

This article is woefully incomplete and very badly needs cleanup. I have removed the "prebiotic soup" section, as it is largely irrelevant to an article explaining what RNA is. I'll also mentally add finishing this article to my to-do list; I'll try to get to it some time this weekend or next week. Unless somebody else would like to take a stab at rewriting it...--[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 18:09, 1 November 2012 (EDT)

RNA

2012-11-01T22:09:13Z

JHunter: trimmed "prebiotic soup" section. this article needs some work...

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.

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

Ribozyme

2012-11-01T21:23:59Z

JHunter: created stub, currently writing article

A '''ribozyme''' is a [[RNA|polyribonucleotide]] (RNA molecule) with [[enzyme|enzymatic]] activity. They are sometimes also referred to as "RNA enzymes" however, because this term can lead to some confusion in distinguishing them from [[ribonucleoprotein|ribonucleoproteins]] (proteins that contain RNA), "ribozyme" is preferred.

Ribozymes are found in every known cell and are essential to cell functioning. The most well known example of an essential ribozyme is the 28S rRNA (called the 23S rRNA in [[prokaryotes]]), which carries out the aminoacyltransferase (peptide-lengthening) activity of [[ribosome|ribosomes]].

Developmental biology

2012-10-31T22:12:37Z

JHunter: updated reference

'''Developmental biology''' is the field of [[biology]] involving the study of the development of complex [[organisms]] from a single [[cell]], the fertilized [[egg|ovum]] (called a [[zygote]]), to maturity. While developmental biology may be used to refer to the study of [[plant]] and [[fungus|fungi]] development, the most active area of research, by far, is the study of [[animal]] development.

Like most disciplines of biology, modern developmental biology is highly inter-disciplinary. It incorporates aspects of [[molecular biology]], [[anatomy]], [[physiology]], [[stem cells|stem cell biology]], and [[cell biology]] to further scientific understanding of developmental mechanisms. Out of this, developmental biologists now can study the processes bridging the gap between [[gene|genes]] and [[phenotype]].<ref>Gilbert (2006). Developmental Biology.</ref>

==History==

The earliest known study in developmental biology was a work on comparative embryology, ''The Generation of Animals'', attributed to Aristotle ca. 350 BC<ref>http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/a/aristotle/generation/</ref>. While this work accurately describes the morphological development embryos of various animal species, it would not be until the 17th century AD that researchers would undertake more detailed studies.

Armed with the recently-invented microscope, investigators such as Marcello Malpighi, who published his description of chick embryonic development in 1672, and Kaspar Friedrich Wolff, who undertook the first studies on [[organogenesis|organ development]] in the 1760s, were finally able to start the still-ongoing process of unraveling the intricacies of organismal development.

With the advent of [[genetics]] in the early 20th century and, later, modern [[molecular biology|molecular techniques]], scientists began to investigate even deeper. The field turned toward examining the molecular mechanisms underlying the morphological processes which the microscope had revealed<ref>Gilbert (2006). Developmental Biology.</ref>. This work combined with advances in molecular biology, [[population genetics]], and the [[modern synthesis|modern evolutionary synthesis]] to create the field (and research paradigm) of [[evolutionary developmental biology]] (commonly called "evo-devo")<ref>http://web.biosci.utexas.edu/genetics/Literature/articles/Development/Development,%20%20HOX%20Evolution.pdf</ref>.

==Overview==

The processes of interest to modern developmental biology generally fall into one or more of five broad categories:

::1. '''Embryonic development''', the development of a [[zygote]] into an [[embryo]] with differentiated tissues<ref>See also: [[Embryonic Development]]</ref>.

::2. '''Cell differentiation''', the growth and [[cell differentiation|differentiation]] of pluripotent [[stem cells]] or precursor cells into different [[cell types|List of cell types]].

::3. '''Growth and tissue homeostasis''', growth of differentiated tissues from differentiation to maturity, as well as the ongoing developmental processes required for [[homeostasis|tissue maintenance]].

::4. '''Metamorphosis''', the transition from larval [[anatomy|body plan]] to adult body plan in organisms where these differ.

::5. '''Regeneration''', wound repair and de-novo [[regeneration]] in damaged adult tissues.

Obviously, these categories are not exclusive. In fact, there is a great deal of overlap, in terms of the processes and mechanisms involved, between them.

==Applications==

The most visible applications of findings in developmental biology are in [[medicine]]. Advances in developmental biology have added significantly to the scientific understanding of many diverse areas of human anatomy and physiology. Additionally, the contributions of developmental biology to the understanding of various disease processes (e.g. [[cancer]]<ref>http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v17/n3/pdf/nm.2304.pdf</ref>, [[birth defects|congenital diseases]], aging<ref>http://www.uccs.edu/~rmelamed/aging/freitas__de_magalhaes_2011.pdf</ref>, etc.) continue to yield novel treatment strategies.

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Biology]]

Evolutionary developmental biology

2012-10-31T21:23:04Z

JHunter: wrote article, may add section on "applications" later

'''Evolutionary developmental biology''', commonly called '''Evo-devo''', is the discipline of biology that studies [[developmental biology|developmental]] processes in different species and across taxa in order to better understand the developmental processes themselves, evolutionary relationships between organisms, and the molecular processes underlying [[phenotype|phenotypic]] variation and change. Evo-devo is often considered to be a sub-discipline of [[developmental biology]], as it examines how changes in developmental processes are responsible for physical differences between species<ref>http://www.chemlife.umd.edu/biology/cev/HoekstraCoyne2007.pdf</ref><ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2280037/pdf/nihms-43278.pdf</ref><ref>http://www.pnas.org/content/97/9/4424.full.pdf+html</ref><ref>http://ww.explorelifeonearth.org/cursos/Bolker2000.pdf</ref>.

Evo-devo is relatively new as a field in its own right. It was founded in the late 1970s and early 1980s after early studies in [[comparative genomics]] revealed the unexpected genetic similarities between different species of complex organisms (mostly animals). Early discoveries in Evo-devo resulted in a major paradigm shift in evolutionary thought; establishing that changes in patterns of [[gene expression]], rather than changes in the protein-coding sequences of the genes themselves, are the major underlying cause of morphological variation<ref>Stern, David. (2010). ''Evolution, development, and the predictable genome.''</ref>.

==History==

Although now thoroughly discredited, [[Ernst Haeckel|recapitulation theory]] was an early attempt to examine development in an evolutionary context. This theory, summarized by the famous phrase "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny", was quickly demonstrated to be largely incorrect. However, the [[hypothesis]] that similarities and differences in early [[embryogenesis|embryonic development]] can be used to infer evolutionary relationships and the mechanisms giving rise to physical similarities and differences between species has been consistently well supported by experimental evidence for almost a century.

With the rise of [[molecular biology]] and [[genetics]] in the second half of the twentieth century, it became possible to investigate the molecular and biochemical mechanisms governing development. This led to early studies comparing the molecular regulation of development in various species<ref>Gilbert, SF. (2010). ''Developmental biology, 9th edition''</ref>.

One surprising finding to come out of these early studies was the high degree of conservation (that is similarities) of the molecular mechanisms governing development in seemingly distantly-related clades. This finding catalyzed a major paradigm shift in the field of [[evolutionary biology]], revealing, for the first time, the molecular causes of phenotypic variation and change.

==General Overview==

The development of a single cell into a large, complex organism with well-organized tissues is an elaborate process requiring intricate regulation. Cells have to divide, migrate, apoptos, differentiate, and undergo a host of other processes with clockwork precision in close coordination with other cells. A defect in early development is universally lethal to a complex organism; similarly, even defects late in development are often profoundly detrimental to an organism's ability to survive in its environment.

These simple observations posed a significant paradox in evolutionary thought. If evolution is driven by the force of natural selection acting on phenotypic variations between individuals, then how do these variations arise without irreversably disrupting intricate developmental processes? The answer to this question is deceptively simple; these variations arise by reorganizing existing developmental processes while leaving their machinery (that is, [[genes]] and molecular signalling pathways) largely intact<ref>http://www.tcd.ie/Biology_Teaching_Centre/assets/pdf/by2204/amclby2204/amclby2204-carroll-evodevo.paper.pdf</ref><ref>http://ww.explorelifeonearth.org/cursos/Bolker2000.pdf</ref><ref>http://www.biol.uw.edu.pl/empseb2010/images/artPigliucci1.pdf</ref>.

The evidence for this explanation is abundant. The genes responsible for regulating embryogenesis are very highly conserved among animals; they do not change significantly in sequence or function, even between clades that appear to be relatively distantly related. For instance, the ''Hox genes'' (which are needed to organize body plan) are expressed in an almost identical pattern in a fruit fly embryo that they are in a mouse (or human) embryo. The differences in developmental regulation that do exist between clades tend to be simple variations in the expression pattern of molecular developmental regulators, rather than structural variations in the regulators themselves<ref>http://www.sinauer.com/gilbert9e/sample/Gilbert9e_Ch02.pdf</ref><ref>http://www.springerlink.com/content/a31n1412g741k03p/</ref>.

Therefore, understanding the nature of the molecular regulation of development is the key to understanding both development and phenotypic change<ref>http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-cellbio-101011-155732</ref><ref>http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/08/27/icb.ics112.short</ref><ref>http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1525-142X.2011.00520.x/pdf</ref>.

==References==

<references/>

Archaea

2012-10-28T19:45:21Z

JHunter: created article

'''Archaea''' is one of the three [[Domain (biology)|domains]] of life (the other two being [[prokaryote|prokaryotes]] and [[eukaryote|eukarya]]). It comprises single-celled organisms, similar in size and shape to prokaryotes, that, like prokaryotes, lack internally compartmentalized [[organelles]]. It was established as a separate domain from prokaryotes after biochemical and genetic studies revealed that archaeans formed a genetically distinct group, with distinctive biochemistry (notably in the lipid composition of their cell membranes) and metabolic pathways.

RNA polymerase

2012-10-28T16:29:46Z

JHunter: done for now, may expand later

'''RNA polymerases''', often abbreviated to '''RNAP''', are the enzymes in a cell responsible for [[transcription|synthesizing]] strands of [[RNA]]. Because this function is essential to life, all organisms (and quite a few viruses) contain at least one type of RNA polymerase. Depending on the RNA polymerase, transcription requires either a [[DNA]] or an RNA template; although in most contexts, "RNA polymerase" refers to the DNA-dependant RNA polymerases, which use a DNA template to [[transcription|transcribe]] genes into [[mRNA]] ("messenger" RNA). [[reverse transcriptase|Reverse transcriptases]] are enzymes (usually associated with [[retrovirus|retroviruses]]) that perform the opposite function, using an RNA template to synthesize a [[DNA]] product.

==Types==

Most [[prokaryote|prokaryotes]] and [[archaea|archaeans]] use the same RNA polymerase to transcribe [[mRNA]] and functional non-coding RNAs (e.g. [[rRNA|ribosomal RNAs]] or [[tRNA|transfer RNAs]]). Whereas [[eukaryote|eukaryotes]] (organisms in which the genetic material is contained within a [[nucleus]]) use specialized RNAPs, each responsible for transcribing different classes of RNA.

RNA polymerase II (abbreviated RNAP II or RNA Pol II), is the enzyme responsible for transcribing the vast majority of protein-coding genes in eukaryotes. It is also responsible for transcribing the majority of genes encoding [[snRNA|short nuclear RNAs]] (snRNAs) and [[miRNA|micro RNAs]] (miRNAs). As such, RNAP II is the most well-studied and well understood of the eukaryotic RNAPs. Genes transcribed by RNAP II are referred to as "type II genes" and comprise the vast majority of genes present in eukaryotic genomes.

RNA polymerase I (RNAP I or RNA Pol I) transcribes most of the [[rRNA|ribosomal RNAs]] in a eukaryotic cell (most of which are derived from a single transcript called the "large rRNA precursor").

RNA polymerase III (RNAP III or RNA pol III) transcribes the [[transfer RNA|tRNA]] precursors, as well as the 5S rRNA, the U6 snRNA (involved in [[RNA processing|RNA splicing]])and various other small functional RNA products.

Plant nuclei contain two additional types of RNAP (RNAP IV and RNAP V), which are used to synthesize [[siRNA|short interfering RNAs]] that mostly function in [[gene regulation]].

[[mitochondrial DNA|Mitochondrial genes]] are transcribed by a separate mitochondrial RNA polymerase that is very similar in structure and function to bacterial RNAP.

==Sources==

1. Alberts et al. (2008). ''Molecular biology of the cell''.

RNA polymerase

2012-10-28T16:09:09Z

JHunter: saving progress again, still expanding article

'''RNA polymerases''', often abbreviated to '''RNAP''', are the enzymes in a cell responsible for [[transcription|synthesizing]] strands of [[RNA]]. Because this function is essential to life, all organisms (and quite a few viruses) contain at least one type of RNA polymerase. Depending on the RNA polymerase, transcription requires either a [[DNA]] or an RNA template; although in most contexts, "RNA polymerase" refers to the DNA-dependant RNA polymerases, which use a DNA template to [[transcribe|transcription]] genes into [[mRNA]] ("messenger" RNA). [[reverse transcriptase|Reverse transcriptases]] are enzymes (usually associated with [[retrovirus|retroviruses]]) that perform the opposite function, using an RNA template to synthesize a [[DNA]] product.

==Types==

Most [[prokaryote|prokaryotes]] and [[archaea|archaeans]] use the same RNA polymerase to transcribe [[mRNA]] and functional non-coding RNAs (e.g. [[rRNA|ribosomal RNAs]] or [[tRNA|transfer RNAs]]). Whereas [[eukaryote|eukaryotes]] (organisms in which the genetic material is contained within a [[nucleus]]) use specialized RNAPs, each responsible for transcribing different classes of RNA.

RNA polymerase II (abbreviated RNAP II or RNA Pol II), is the enzyme responsible for transcribing the vast majority of protein-coding genes in eukaryotes. It is also responsible for transcribing the majority of genes encoding [[snRNA|short nuclear RNAs]] (snRNAs) and [[miRNA|micro RNAs]] (miRNAs). As such, RNAP II is the most well-studied and well understood of the eukaryotic RNAPs. Genes transcribed by RNAP II are referred to as "type II genes" and comprise the vast majority of genes present in eukaryotic genomes.

RNA polymerase I (RNAP I or RNA Pol I) transcribes most of the [[rRNA|ribosomal RNAs]] in a eukaryotic cell. RNA polymerase III (RNAP III or RNA pol III) transcribes the [[transfer RNA|tRNA]] precursors, as well as the 5S rRNA, the U6 snRNA (involved in [[RNA processing|RNA splicing]])and various other small functional RNA products.

RNA polymerase

2012-10-28T15:38:57Z

JHunter: my internet has been spotty this morning, so I'm saving my progress again

RNA polymerase

2012-10-28T15:20:35Z

JHunter: created page. currently writing article, saving progress.

Talk:Early voting

2012-10-28T13:33:13Z

JHunter:

== Voter intimidation ==

The page says that early voting "facilitates voter intimidation, particularly by unions and large employers that try to increase turnout by their people." Could someone please explain this? As I understand it, the ballot is still secret, and voters are free to spoil their ballot without anyone knowing. I personally think that increased ''lawful'' participation in democracy makes our government better. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 12:04, 13 October 2012 (EDT)

:Studies show that overall turnout is not increased by early voting. If anything, it detracts from the respect of Election Day.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:15, 27 October 2012 (EDT)
::You did not answer the question. How does early voting "facilitate voter intimidation." ?

:::It's obvious: union bosses and employers tell the rank and file to vote early, and may even drive them to the polls. That is not voting free from all intimidation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:14, 27 October 2012 (EDT)

==Need sources==
An encyclopedia article needs to be more than personal opinion and should have sources. The sentence, "The less the early voting, the more integrity there is in the process, and the more likely it is the Republican candidate will win.:" is not necessarily true and is certainly not true over a long period of time. But there is no caveat as to what time period is address. The only text reference is to the year 2010. I can think of states where early voting was disproportionately for the Republican candidate. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 10:01, 27 October 2012 (EDT)

:I'll look for cites, but the truth of the statement is self-evident.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:14, 27 October 2012 (EDT)
::It is not self-evident nor universally applicable. Suppose there is a state with a popular Republican US Senator who is polling at 70%. He will get 70% of the early vote. If there is a hurricane on election day and only very few hard core supporters vote on that day, he may get only 50% of election day votes. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 10:19, 27 October 2012 (EDT)
:::"The truth of the statement is self-evident." That's a great way to avoid having to back up assertions with empirical data. Have you ever tried that on a judge? [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 10:23, 27 October 2012 (EDT)

::::Folks, do you look for cites on the internet? They are not hard to find, and I've just added two.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:12, 27 October 2012 (EDT)
::::::Well, you have some anecdotal evidence, nothing that suggests a wider pattern, but it's a start, so that's an improvement. Next time, don't wait for people to beg you for citations. Learn how to make and document an argument properly. [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 21:22, 27 October 2012 (EDT)

:::::::How about looking first on the internet, before complaining? The statements about the defects in early voting are logical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:29, 27 October 2012 (EDT)
::::::::Thank you for your copy edit of my copy edit. Much better. However 7 p.m. + 7 hours = 2 a.m. not 4 a.m. I still believe that generalizations need to be limited to "in 2012" or "in Colorado" etc. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 21:36, 27 October 2012 (EDT)

Depending on the state (for instance, early votes cast in Florida tend to buck the trend by being overwhelmingly Republican), a quick glance over some sources does lead me to reluctantly agree with Andy that early voting does tend to give a ''slight'' advantage to Democratic candidates (enough to sway the results of a '''close''' election). This is because the demographics most likely to vote early are the elderly (who usually vote Republican), racial minorities (who usually vote for Democrats), and blue collar workers (who also trend towards the Democrats). Given the reasons most often cited for voting early, which are convenience, having to work on election day, and having already decided who to vote for, this is not particularly surprising. It does not, however, appear that this is has anything to do with voter intimidation or any other underhanded tactics; its just the nature of the process. (here are links to the sources I looked over, [http://www.uakron.edu/bliss/research/archives/2010/EarlyVotingReport.pdf link 1], [http://www.austincc.edu/cppps/earlyvotingfull/report5.pdf link 2], [http://www.leonvotes.org/?page=Maps%20and%20Demographics/VoterDemographics.asp link 3], [http://elections.gmu.edu/early_vote_2012.html link 4]. --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 09:33, 28 October 2012 (EDT)

Transcription factor

2012-10-26T00:35:28Z

JHunter: /* Structure */ typo

'''Transcription factors''' are proteins that bind to specific [[DNA]] sequences in order to [[gene regulation|regulate]] [[gene expression]]. They can act as ''activators'' or ''repressors'', respectively increasing or decreasing the [[transcription]] of a target [[gene]]. Some transcription factors function by directly recruiting (or, conversely, blocking the recruitment of) [[RNA polymerase]] to the [[promoter]] region of a target gene; however, the majority of transcription factors function through interaction with one or more [[adapter protein|adapter proteins]].<ref>Weaver, Robert F. ''Molecular Biology''. 4th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2008.</ref>

Transcription factors comprise several [[gene family|protein families]] (groups of closely related proteins), many of which are found in every lineage of organism. Genes encoding for transcription factors make up a significant portion of every organism's genome. There are estimated to be well over 2000 genes (some estimates are as high as 3000) encoding for transcription factors in the human genome (~10% of all human genes)<ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11823631</ref><ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15193307</ref>. These genes tend to be highly conserved and, in many instances, can be functionally interchangeable between organisms of different clades.

==Structure==

Like all [[protein|proteins]], transcription factors are composed of discrete functional modules called "domains". Transcription factors generally contain at least two functional domains, a ''DNA binding domain'' (DBD) and a ''trans-activating domain'' (TAD). Some transcription factors also possess a ''signal sensing domain'' (SSD).

The DNA binding domain is the domain that recognizes and binds to a specific DNA sequence. DNA sequences recognized by the DNA binding domains of transcription factors are often called ''enhancer sequences'' (often shortened simply to "enhancers"). They can also be called ''DNA binding sites'' or (in the case of sequences recognized by [[nuclear hormone receptor|nuclear hormone receptors]]) ''response elements''. Depending on the transcription factor, these sequences can be as short as 4 base pairs or as long as 30 base pairs (in a few rare instances, they can be even longer).

The trans-activating domain is the part of the transcription factor that interacts with and binds to other proteins.

In transcription factors with a signal sensing domain, the signal sensing domain is the part of the trascription factor that binds to chemical signals (e.g. a steroid hormone or cAMP), allowing the transcription factor to function in response to a particular chemical signal.

==Function==

Transcription factors work by recruiting [[RNA polymerase]] to the [[promoter]] region of a gene, or by blocking the access of RNA polymerase to a promoter. This can be accomplished by direct interaction with the RNA polymerase, indirect interaction with the RNA polymerase via [[adapter protein|adapter proteins]], or through interaction with [[epigenetics|histone-modifying enzymes]].

As major regulators of [[gene expression]], transcription factors play a role in all cell processes. Depending on the transcription factor, this can range from regulation of [[metabolism|cell metabolism]] to regulation of [[cell cycle]]. In complex organisms, specific transcription factors regulate [[developmental biology|developmental processes]] and [[cell differentiation]].

The mechanism through which a transcription factor functions, and its regulatory effect (up-regulation or down-regulation) on a target gene, varies widely between transcription factors. The regulatory effect (and sometimes mechanism) of a specific transcription factor often varies depending on the target gene, and can sometimes even vary in response to other factors within the cell.

==See Also==

[[Gene regulation]]

[[Gene expression]]

[[Molecular biology]]

[[Developmental biology]]

[[Transcription]]

[[Central dogma of molecular biology]]

==References==

<references/>

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

Transcription factors

2012-10-24T15:06:33Z

JHunter: added redirect

#REDIRECT [[Transcription factor]]