...Something for you biologists to take a look at.

post about THC tomatoes

I don’t know if this is any help or not. But to the response of the man who commented on the possibility of injecting a gene that produces THC into tomatoes. You said its probably impossible because of there genetic diversity. I would figure if you knew the amino acid sequence of THC you could manufacture an mRNA strand (the codons that code for a particular amino acid are in reference books and nearly universal for all walks of life). if this strand was read by the RNA polymerase and THC was produced it a good bet that its a useable gene. Unfortunately transformation into the tomato would be VERY difficult because little is known about eukaryotic gene regulation, and what is known is sketchy. I would recommend using bacteria such as E. Coli because transformation is quite easy and genes are by default expressed. As far as producing THC that is useable for human consumption much more is needed. Several attempts at the biological synthesis of a chemical have resulted in consumer disasters. In one experiment I believe they were making tryptophan. They synthesized mRNA and included it into the genome of bacteria. When the levels of tryptophan became extremely high in the cytoplasm the cell made a material called 1-ethylidine-bis-L-tryptophan or EBT. EBT causes horrible side effects in humans. Due to poor lab procedure the tryptophan/EBT concoction was ingested causing many to get sick. The reason the bacteria reverted to producing EBT is still unknown. Moral of the story, anything can be modified to make your desired end product but isolation of the end product is key to safe a manufacturing procedure.

Does anyone have anyone have any notable material on the subject? I am very interested.
 
THC isn't a protien. There's a whole pathway that would need to be transfected for it to work.

I think transgenics in tomatoes works ok, though admittedly tobacco is the best studied plant for transgenics, but that wouldn't make any sense ...

As you pointed out you would probably want the production to be regulated, but that might be difficult as the promoters from plants don't necessarily work in other species (though some probably do ... especially in closely related species).

Speaking of which hops is the plant most closely related to herb. I just say stick with natures gifts if tomatoes were supposed to get you blazed they would.
 
If what these researchers say is true, that the theory of a molecular clock is hopelessly flawed, scientists have some real reorganization on their hands.
Click to expand...

No they don't. This seems to me to be a marginal theory to begin with. Creationists like to think that evolution, or any scientific theory for that matter, is a three-legged stool: you discredit one or a few scientific theorems or experiments and therefore the whole thing is bunkum. This in no way invalidates evolutionary thought as a whole.

le coq
 
Last edited:
the real genetic evidence for evolution is not the rate of change in DNA, but gene homology...

why do we all share similar genes?

Why are the genes of some species more similar than others (because they are more related).

That there is some disagreement about the rate of changes between two species is interesting but hardly makes a problem for evolution
 
again

good point, I wasnt thinking. THC isnt a protien. As far as the gene regulation goes, if your going to use tobacco you could PROBABLY use some sort of plasmid (assuming that tobacco accepts plasmids) to inject the pathway. if the pathway is too long however the the sticky ends of it (assuming pathway genes are sequencal) probably wont bind, even if you find the proper digestion enzymes. write back with thoughts
 
I am a biologist, well im still in school :(

Evolution is real folks! The evidence it mind boggling!

I think the problem here is that people are afraid that evolution kills god. This is simple not true. Evolution does not require a god but that not to say there is not one? To put it bluntly science could NEVER disprove god! So you can keep your deities and eat your cake too.

Though the bible that’s just plain false. A book of mythology in my option! Have you ever read these things it say stuff in there like you should eat your children if your under siege and that if a man rapes your daughter you he can get away with it by paying you a ridiculously small amount of money. Jess, that book is scary just plan scary! Genesis though entirely wrong is in no way as bad as some of the other stuff in there!
 
digging up old threads

Originally posted by WellCookedFetus

I think the problem here is that people are afraid that evolution kills god. This is simple not true. Evolution does not require a god but that not to say there is not one? To put it bluntly science could NEVER disprove god! So you can keep your deities and eat your cake too.
Click to expand...

Essentially evolution killed god because it pushed mankind out of the center of the universe. We used to be special before evolution was introduced. Man was created in gods image. Man was the center of the universe and everything revolved around man. Then evolution came along and reduced us to mere animals. We were just another insignificant part of nature.

So yes, evolution did kill of god. Yes, you might still think that there is a god because we can't prove that there isn't. But the most important reason to believe in god has been shown to be false. That we are in some way a special creation with a special purpose.
 
I don't, I'm just trying to devise a way for creationist not to hate me. I don't think that "we are not special" is even provable… your example explains nothing.
 
Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
I don't, I'm just trying to devise a way for creationist not to hate me. I don't think that "we are not special" is even provable… your example explains nothing.
Click to expand...

'we are not special' is proven by evolution.
 
we are not specially created, but a product of evolution as is every other species on this world. We are not on the top of the tree, but merely another branch on the bush of evolution like every other species.

quote from 'descent of man' by charles darwin:

'It is incredible that all these facts should speak falsely. He who is not content to look, like a savage, at the phenomena of nature as disconnected, cannot any longer believe that man is the work of a separate act of creation. He will be forced to admit that the close resemblance of the embryo of man to that, for instance, of a dog- the construction of his skull, limbs and whole frame on the same plan with that of other mammals, independently of the uses to which the parts may be put- the occasional re-appearance of various structures, for instance of several muscles, which man does not normally possess, but which are common to the Quadrumana- and a crowd of analogous facts- all point in the plainest manner to the conclusion that man is the co-descendant with other mammals of a common progenitor.'
 
So? I could say we are spacial because we are very intelligent and can develop technology and crush everything in a wake...
 
some more ranting

any species is special in a certain way (goldfish are probably more remarkable than us in terms of physiological adaptations, etc etc). But before we thought that we were above nature. Then we became part of nature.

It is just that we got used to the concept of evolution and hence we forgot that at one point the whole essence of the debate was about us being part of the whole nature thing, or being a special creation.

So basically people are just pushing forward their definition of special. But the big battle was already lost more than 100 years ago. No it is limited to a few skirmishes. People are special because we are so intelligent, we are special because we use tools, we are special because we have morals...etc etc. We just pick out qualities we know we are good at and make them special. But for all the examples I mentioned they also found animal counterparts. Hence are we that special? no...the only thing we seem to be special at is that we like to deceive ourselves.

well...that's my view on the matter. You may disagree of course.
 
I don't really disagree i just think that creationist can find way of excepting evolution as true and still believe in there deities.
 
yep...i totally agree on that. They should read more on the history of this debate. Then they might found out that they are simply nitpicking now, because that is what they are doing. The real battle is history.
 
There is no empirical evidence supporting macro-evolution whatsoever. Genes have the ability to reorder themselves within a certain threshold, this is micro-evolution. Nowhere is there evidence of new genes being created in "adaptation".

An interesting note,
A lizard's leg would be a bad leg long before it became a good wing, rendering it an inferior specimen... it would be eliminated.

But then, what I think is pretty irrelavent. Jut look out the window.
 
pund said:
There is no empirical evidence supporting macro-evolution whatsoever. Genes have the ability to reorder themselves within a certain threshold, this is micro-evolution. Nowhere is there evidence of new genes being created in "adaptation".
Click to expand...

Duplication of genes.

For instance:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=299744
Hox genes play a key role in animal body plan development. These genes tend to occur in tightly linked clusters in the genome. Vertebrates and invertebrates differ in their Hox cluster number, with vertebrates having multiple clusters and invertebrates usually having only one. Recent evidence shows that vertebrate Hox clusters are structurally more constrained than invertebrate Hox clusters; they exclude transposable elements, do not undergo tandem duplications, and conserve their intergenic distances and gene order. These constraints are only relaxed after a cluster duplication. In contrast, invertebrate Hox clusters are structurally more plastic; tandem duplications are common, the linkage of Hox genes can change quickly, or they can lose their structural integrity completely. We propose that the constraints on vertebrate Hox cluster structure lead to an association between the retention of duplicated Hox clusters and adaptive radiations. After a duplication the constraints on Hox cluster structure are temporarily lifted, which opens a window of evolvability for the Hox clusters. If this window of evolvability coincides with an adaptive radiation, chances are that a modified Hox cluster becomes recruited in an evolutionary novelty and then both copies of duplicated Hox clusters are retained.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top