Posted on 11/27/2005 12:16:08 AM PST by seastay
Of course.
As per perceived ad hominum, You are quite defensive.
Sequence analysis, of ribosome RNA or protein sequence or DNA indicate the important regions for structure and function. Structure is function. Conserved residues and motifs tell a lot and provide information to begin deducing structure and designing experiments to infer structure.
In ribosomal structure for example, certain people are subject to being rendered deaf by certain antibiotics. The differences in rRNA sequences between various bacteria that are differentially affected by given antibiotics and the further analysis with human rRNA sequences can indicate why this happens to some people.
I assume you can see why and follow.
All this can be done without a defintive structure derived from X-ray crystallography and are independent of any evolutionary concerns.
"You are striking me as dimwitted and without curiousity" is a "perceived ad hominum"? What are you, an idiot?
(Please don't take that as an ad hominem, and note the correct spelling)
In ribosomal structure for example, certain people are subject to being rendered deaf by certain antibiotics. The differences in rRNA sequences between various bacteria that are differentially affected by given antibiotics and the further analysis with human rRNA sequences can indicate why this happens to some people.
And yet you resist the idea of analyzing the sequences to find out how the resistance evolved. What are you, dimwitted and without curiosity?
Not at all.
You earlier stated: But the genomes make no sense except from an evolutionary perspective
I am addressing how sequences, genomes included, do make sense outside of an evolutionary perspective and their analysis is of value even without evolutionary considerations.
In no way did I state or imply any resistance to analyzing evolutionary aspects of resistance or anything else.
I suppose it depends on what you mean by 'making sense'. Sure, you can identify streptomycin binding sites in bacterial ribosomes, and look at homologous sites in mitochondrial ribosomes to see if mutations at those sites are associate with deafness; but without an explanation of the homology, which evolution provides, any deductions you make depend on a fortuitous accident.
I'd consider that "making sense".
Why are the sigtes homologous? Why would the homology lead to identical binding?
I'm sure you know this.
Problem is that sequence homology over a small tract of a big macromolecule does not guarantee structural homology, as I'm sure you also know.
The COG CDD projects at NCBI (among others) are trying to address and catalogue various shared structures and domains in proteins.
Domains and motifs can be mixed and matched in different proteins. Recombination events can lead to oncogenic states when domains are mixed. An example is the Hoxd11 were were discussing earlier. The idea that that gene is somehow specific to or in itself directs limb morphogenesis is not really right and I'd hoped to bring that up at some time and this works out well. Hoxd11 as are so many Hox genes (as well as hedgehogs, also mentioned in the SciAm article of another thread) are involved in development seemingly rather generically.
A fusion protein fromed by recombination of a gene called NUP98 and Hoxd11 is, for example, a cause of leukemia. Hoxd11 is found in hematopoietic stem cells and when it becomes dysregulated by the fusion even, the stem cells do not develop (or differentiate) correctly, leading to a proliferation of leukemic cells.
bttt
This seems to cover it.
The trouble is that most Christian colleges are on the small side, and so they can't afford to offer all of the common science majors, like physics, chemistry, and biology. They also usually can't afford to support strong engineering departments.
If you want to be a pocket-protector type, and can't afford Harvard, then public schools are the best way to go.
If by "something" you mean that lots of Freepers will agree with you, then, yeah, you've started something. =)
You are striking me as being horribly rude. :P
BTW, people do not read papers in scientific journals UNLESS they are very curious. Usually, it isn't exactly light reading!
I don't know if that is a fair assesment.
It takes a pretty dim bulb to try hard and still make a 800 SAT score. :P
What does " :P" mean?
Smiley with minor raspberry, IIRC. :)
Yours is the first response to my comment! I thought surely there would be someone out there who would take exception.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.