 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / November 2005Molecular Biology 101
Iconoclaster, Okay, my first question may seem a bit "general," but I want to start with *the most* basic understanding of biology with this *little* icebreaker: What is "life"? In other words, what saparates what we consider to be "living" from what we consider to be "dead"? Is it the ability to convert sunlight (or "stored" sunlight) into energy? Paul, >"In other words, what saparates what we consider to be "living" from what we consider to be "dead"? This simple question is very basic, yet difficult to answer. So it has been a point of discussion for many centuries. The definition that is given at the present time is: *"Something is alive when it is able to reproduce, and when it has a metabolism of its own."* This means bacteria, fungi, and other micro-organisms are alive. Plants are alive. Animals are alive. Viruses are dead. True, they can reproduce when put in the right environment (a living cell), but viruses lack their own metabolism. A virus cannot even break down one molecule of glucose to CO2 and H2O, which is absolutely no problem for most bacteria and other low-lives. Now I know what your next question might be: "Gay men may have a metabolism, but they don't reproduce". No, they are certainly not dead. I know a few live ones myself. They may not reproduce as a whole, but the cells of which they're built do it all the time. And metabolism takes place inside these cells. >"Is it the ability to convert sunlight (or "stored" sunlight) into energy?" No, it's not. This useful property is reserved for green beings: Plants and green algae. They contain chlorophyl, and have a complicated chemical mechanism called photosynthesis. That enables them to build up impressive structures like trees from the simplest starting materials: Water and CO2 This process costs energy, and plants derive that from sunlight, which they are able to store in the form of high-energy compounds. An impressive achievement that we primitive humans cannot match. (I don't know about "little green men from Mars"...) Living beings that are not green must get the energy from another source, namely ingested food. In this case, use is made of the energy that is released when oxygen combines with hydrogen, or most other chemical elements. This energy is stored in "high-energy compounds", so that it can be used in other pathways of metabolism. In summary: Ability to reproduce + metabolism = life One of these lacking = death (like viruses). > Paul, > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > mechanism called photosynthesis. That enables them to build up impressive > structures like trees from the simplest starting materials: Water and CO2 You won't see much growth out of a tree if it only has water and C02 to work with now will you Claster? The minerals in the soil do play a part in the growth of plants that you seem to have forgotten. > This process costs energy, and plants derive that from sunlight, which > they are able to store in the form of high-energy compounds. An > impressive achievement that we primitive humans cannot match. (I don't > know about "little green men from Mars"...) Of course you know that there are deep water plants that do not use photosynthesis, just as there are deep water animals that do not use oxygen, using methane and/or sulfur instead. Now Paul I though you were going to get educated, expecting that to happen with the help of Iconclaster is as effective as turning to Usenet for medical advice. He has demonstrated a complete lack of any scientific expertise on any subjects that he has attempted to speak on thus far here on MHA. Gary Stein >Now Paul I though you were going to get educated, expecting that to happen >with the help of Iconclaster is as effective as turning to Usenet for >medical advice. He has demonstrated a complete lack of any scientific >expertise on any subjects that he has attempted to speak on thus far here on >MHA. What are your credentials, again, Gary? -Paul Whiting >>Now Paul I though you were going to get educated, expecting that to > happen [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > What are your credentials, again, Gary? Well lets see I have BS in Computer Science, an MBA, and spent from 1996 to 2001 devoting around 8 hours a day to educating myself on HIV, AIDS, the treatment of OI's and the pharmacology of ARV. What are yours and Iconoclaster's? He makes claims about his education but nothing he posts indicates that those claims are true.................... Gary Stein >>Now Paul I though you were going to get educated, expecting that to >happen [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >What are your credentials, again, Gary? The last bastion of the small-minded! LOL. If credentials are the thing, then you must believe all that Anthony Fauci says. And Robert Gallo. And Luc Montaignier. And Brigitte Autran. They have impeccable credentials. In some cases, credentials do not reflect the thinking capacity of the critter claiming them. George M. Carter Yep--no credentials here! Just a couple of years of college. >What are your credentials, again, Gary? I note, further, that once again you did not choose to comment on the content of his commentary but upon the guy himself. Well, I'm very pleased that all of you have decided to join the class. I'm sure you'll benefit from it. >"You won't see much growth out of a tree if it only has water and C02 to work with now will you Claster? The minerals in the soil do play a part in the growth of plants that you seem to have forgotten." No, I've not forgotten anything. But sometimes I have to leave some nitpicking details out, because I don't want to make it too difficult for you. You are right about the minerals, of course. And a tree also needs nitrogen and sulfur, to synthesize the amino acids. For binding nitrogen from the air, there is even a clever collaboration with bacteria that are able to do this. These bacteria live at the plant roots in perfect symbiosis. Yet, isn't it a great wonder to see a majestic tree, its structure entirely built up from carbon dioxide and water, plus a little nitpicking from Mr. Stein? >"Of course you know that there are deep water plants that do not use photosynthesis, just as there are deep water animals that do not use oxygen, using methane and/or sulfur instead." Yes, they exist. Those plants are not green, by the way. And we'll never see those animals because they are in deep water and we're not. Let's be practical, otherwise we'll be in deep sh.t. > Well, I'm very pleased that all of you have decided to join the class. > I'm [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > see those animals because they are in deep water and we're not. Let's be > practical, otherwise we'll be in deep sh.t. I've seen both, on the website of the University of Washington's Department of Oceanography. They have live images coming from cameras located next to deep sea geothermal vents in the deep Pacific off the coast of Washington. They installed several hundred miles of fiber optic cabling and sensors and cameras on the ocean floor and are making some of the data collected available in real-time on the web. The point I am trying to make is that you can simplify your presentation to the point that it is useless in describing reality. Don't think for a minute that you will be allowed to do so. Gary Stein >"The point I am trying to make is that you can simplify your presentation to the point that it is useless in describing reality. Don't think for a minute that you will be allowed to do so." No Mr. Stein, your intentions are not all that pure. I appreciate your contribution about deep-sea life, but we're not here to study that. Reality is air at a pressure of 1 atm. and a temperature of 20-25 degrees. You only bring up the weirdo stuff for the purpose of obstruction. >>"The point I am trying to make is that you can simplify your presentation >to the point that it is useless in describing reality. Don't think for a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Reality is air at a pressure of 1 atm. and a temperature of 20-25 degrees. > You only bring up the weirdo stuff for the purpose of obstruction. Reality is also air at pressure of 0.5 atm, 0 atm, 20....temperatures similarly vary widely....in many of these places that hitherto were thought to be inhospitable to life, critters thrive. Some say you indeed were something that crawled out of the sulfurous bowels of the earth and others point to the odor as proof. I tend to require a bit more evidence before accepting these statements. Certainly, Intelligent Design adherents throw up there hands in despair as you stand as a stark example of how stupid the designer must have been, should such a critter have existed. G. Mary > Certainly, Intelligent Design adherents throw up there hands in > despair as you stand as a stark example of how stupid the designer > must have been, should such a critter have existed. And there are those of faith who may believe that it was all created with evolution as the tool. Which reconciles things quite nicely, thank you. B/ >> Certainly, Intelligent Design adherents throw up there hands in >> despair as you stand as a stark example of how stupid the designer [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >with evolution as the tool. Which reconciles things quite nicely, thank >you. Random! Chaos!! Just an accident!! That's THE Truth and if YOU do not believe it, you are a fool! A heretic!! And ya KNOW what we do to heretix. There is no more conversation to be had on the issue. There is only One Truth and I have expressed it!!! Yours in Devout Agnosticism.... ;) (There's always Rumi in my heart for you, despite your heresies!) > There is no more conversation to be had on the issue. There is only > One Truth and I have expressed it!!! > > Yours in Devout Agnosticism.... > ;) Which is not atheism... B/ >> There is no more conversation to be had on the issue. There is only >> One Truth and I have expressed it!!! [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Which is not atheism... You bet!!! Agnosticism is ABSOLUTELY not atheism. I ain't an atheist. But CERTAIN I'm agnostic. Ah, ignorance. Such bliss! ;) >"Reality is also air at pressure of 0.5 atm, 0 atm, 20....temperatures similarly vary widely....in many of these places that hitherto were thought to be inhospitable to life, critters thrive." True, but irrelevant here. See my remark about obstruction. >Paul, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >This means bacteria, fungi, and other micro-organisms are alive. Plants >are alive. Animals are alive. So, the key seems to be metabolism, which is the... Sum of the physical and chemical changes that take place in living organisms. These changes include both synthesis (anabolism) and breakdown (catabolism) of body constituents. In a narrower sense, the physical and chemical changes that take place in a given chemical substance within an organism. It includes the uptake and distribution within the body of chemical compounds, the changes (biotransformations) undergone by such substances, and the elimination of the compounds and their metabolites. www.bio.hw.ac.uk/edintox/glossall.htm Does that mean, then, that *chemical reactions* are the "key to all life?" In other words, "life" is the ability to convert one kind of energy into another kind of energy, yes? Like, it is the plant's ability to convert sunlight into food energy. And it's the animals ability to convert plants into food energy. >Viruses are dead. True, they can reproduce when put in the right >environment (a living cell), but viruses lack their own metabolism. A [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >reproduce as a whole, but the cells of which they're built do it all the >time. And metabolism takes place inside these cells. And if other things (like viruses!) can induce chemical reactions (even though they need to "steal" the ability to do so), does that mean they are still "dead"? >>"Is it the ability to convert sunlight (or "stored" sunlight) into >energy?" [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >In summary: Ability to reproduce + metabolism = life >One of these lacking = death (like viruses). Yet, how are viruses able to "act intelligent?" I mean, how are they able to adapt (say, during each flu season) and spread as if they are doing it by design? Oh! I just remembered watching a program on PBS, a number of years back, about some living creature (it may have been tube worms) that are able to live on the bottom of the ocean with ZERO sunlight by surviving off the energy released by underwater volcanos. And, I am assuming for the sake of argument, that volcanic activity is "similar" to nuclear fusion (sunlight), in that both of these chemical processes create heat and light (energy). So, is the key to "life" the ability to convert certain kinds of chemical reactions (energy producing) into other kinds of chemical reactions (energy consuming)? Does that make sense? -Paul Whiting >"Does that mean, then, that *chemical reactions* are the "key to all life?" Yes Paul, they are. We are chemical beings. There are attempts going on to make an "electronic human", but thus far the result have been dismal. My prediction is that there will never be such a "creature", because they would be too sensitive to outside signals to function properly. In our own body, electrical signals are sent from the brain to the skeletal muscles, for example. But for some (probably good) reason, our nerves are not continuous conductors fro electrical signals. The nerve cells (neurons) communicate with each other at the synapse (the space between adjacent neurons)through an exchange of neurotransmitters, which are chemical compounds. >"In other words, "life" is the ability to convert one kind of energy into another kind of energy, yes?" No. If that were so, then every transducer would be a living being. (A photo-electric cell or a sun panel is a transducer. So is a dynamo). But the conversion and use of energy is certainly a requirement to sustain life. >"And if other things (like viruses!) can induce chemical reactions (even though they need to "steal" the ability to do so), does that mean they are still "dead"? Yes, because they don't have the mechanism itself. They do, however, contain the genetic code to make the host cell do the things they need. A virus has none of the equipment, only the instruction manual how to operate the equipment. >"Yet, how are viruses able to "act intelligent?" I mean, how are they able to adapt (say, during each flu season) and spread as if they are doing it by design?" [groann!!] Viruses NEVER act intelligently. They don't do anything by design. If you come back after several millions of years, you'll certainly find that they have adapted. The reason is that the non-viable mutants have lost the ability to reproduce, so they have disappeared. But those that happen to thrive in whatever environment we'll have in a few millions of years, will be there, infecting the cells for which they have specificity. But mutation is a random event. If there is any intelligence behind it, it's not vested in the virus itself. You mention the flu seasons: Influenza viruses are more complicated than most other viruses. They have a segmented genome, i.e., its RNA consists of several separate chains. Yet, interchange of pieces of RNA between chains (recombination) does not happen within the virus particle. It can happen, however, in biological systems infected by the virus. If more than one type of flu virus infects an animal or a human, recombination is possible, but also reassortment, which is a swap of whole chains between viruses. The results are unpredictable. So an outbreak of H5N1 is theoretically possible. But if you're any kind of a poker player at all, you'll realize that the odds are overwhelmingly against it. *There will be no bird-flu epidemic among human!* It's just fear-mongering. But it does sell Tamiflu. >"Oh! I just remembered watching a program on PBS, a number of years back, about some living creature (it may have been tube worms) that are able to live on the bottom of the ocean with ZERO sunlight by surviving off the energy released by underwater volcanos." You must have watched the same program as Gary Stein did. Yes, these beasts exist. You don't even need volcanic activity to gain energy from th sea. All that's needed is a difference in temperature at different depths. You can drive a small engine with that, to generate electricity. This type of geothermal energy was seriously considered in the late seventies. Jimmy Carter was president then. But from 1981 on, all research on alternate energy sources was closed down, and oil was king again. (And guess what else started happening from 1981 on...) >"So, is the key to "life" the ability to convert certain kinds of chemical reactions (energy producing) into other kinds of chemical reactions (energy consuming)? Does that make sense?" That's part of it. Living things use energy for their own upkeep, but they also reproduce. And besides: Some living beings can even convert the chemical energy from burning food into mechanical energy, to perform work. A plant doesn't do that, but a horse can. Bacteria generally don't, but spermatozoids do (they have a tail). >>"Does that mean, then, that *chemical reactions* are the "key to all >life?" > >Yes Paul, they are. We are chemical beings. Quartz is ALIVE! Behemoth magnetite cabochons seen attacking Saks Fifth Avenue! Thousands killed in ensuing melee of fleeing ladies! Rubies wickedly eyeing gruff stalactites sneer in disbelief as common feldspars make their moves. Others simply take it for granite. >"Behemoth magnetite cabochons seen attacking Saks Fifth Avenue! Thousands killed in ensuing melee of fleeing ladies!" You shouldn't watch scary movies like that, when you've been smoking that strong stuff from Amsterdam. <a href='http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb008_ZNfox000' target='_blank'><img src='http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/10/10_3_1v.gif' alt='Fainting' border=0></a> For a truly scientific understanding of "life" you need to read one of Gilbert Ling's books. The least technical is his latest, published a few years ago. You can read about then on amazon, just search for his name under books. "pauleewhiting" <pauleewhiting@hotmail.com> wrote in message > Okay, my first question may seem a bit "general," but I want to start > with *the most* basic understanding of biology with this *little* > icebreaker: > > What is "life"? reproduction Reproduction by itself is not enough. If it were, viruses and even computer objects would be alive, as they can reproduce. But, as I pointed out, this fundamental question "What is life" has been discussed for centuries. >Reproduction by itself is not enough. If it were, viruses and even >computer objects would be alive, as they can reproduce. But, as I pointed >out, this fundamental question "What is life" has been discussed for >centuries. I guess what I am driving at is the idea of *chemical reactions.* Just as a simple example, with viruses being "dead" yet "coming to life" (i.e., being able to induce chemical reactions) when they come in contact with a viable host. It's almost as if they are "playing dead" in order to "trick" the body into NOT mounting a defense. Then, when the "enemy" is weak, they (the viruses), suddenly *activate.* Is that possible, or do viruses "activate" randomnly? Is it just "dumb chance" they can make you sick? -Paul Whiting >"Just as a simple example, with viruses being "dead" yet "coming to life" (i.e., being able to induce chemical reactions) when they come in contact with a viable host." The virus doesn't really "come to life". It just holds a script, and directs the cell to carry it out. >"It's almost as if they are "playing dead" in order to "trick" the body into NOT mounting a defense. Then, when the "enemy" is weak, they (the viruses), suddenly *activate.* Is that possible, or do viruses "activate" randomnly? Is it just "dumb chance" they can make you sick?" Depends on the host. Bacteria and plants don't have an immune system, so the virus takes over the direction of every cell it invades. We do have an immune system, and it puts up a fight against all invaders from outside. And, as expected, strong people ward off the infection, while the weak ones succumb. There's no such thing as "trickery" on the part of viruses. But your immune system can be strong when you're relatively young, and you have a healthy lifestyle. It can be weak if you're very old (or very young), or when it is deteriorating from chemical attacks. These chemicals that screw up your immune system can be toxins occurring in the environment, or you may be dumb enough to ingest them yourself. Other means to destroy your immune system are: Radiation (medical or environmental) or a history of disease, whereby the immune system has had to fight many battles in a row. You mention "activation". That doesn't usually happen with viruses. As soon as they enter the cell, they either start multiplying right away, followed by lysis of the host cell, or they peacefully integrate into the genome of the host cell (as retroviruses do), and cause no trouble. There is, however a class of viruses that has a "latent period": The Herpes viruses. That latent period is by no stretch of the imagination 10 years or such. But anyhow, Herpes viruses can be *activated*, so that they suddenly start to replicate, after having been quiet for some time. The mechanism of this activation is still largely unknown. It may be random, but we don't know. Dumb luck whether we get sick or not? That's entirely up to our body; no virus can "decide" that for us. >You mention "activation". That doesn't usually happen with viruses. As >soon as they enter the cell, they either start multiplying right away, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Dumb luck whether we get sick or not? That's entirely up to our body; no >virus can "decide" that for us. Okay, so how does the mechanism of a virus work? You are saying a virus is simply "instructions" on how to replicate itself, but does not have the equipment necessary, so it "steals" that from the cell? So a virus is just the RNA and it steals the cell's DNA in order to make more of itself? And is my understanding correct that RNA is the "contractor" and that DNA is the "building material" from which the contractor can contstruct a shed or a skyscraper, depending upon what "blueprint" the RNA has? -Paul Whiting >>You mention "activation". That doesn't usually happen with viruses. > As [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > DNA is the "building material" from which the contractor can contstruct > a shed or a skyscraper, depending upon what "blueprint" the RNA has? No. Gary Stein It's a lot more complicated than that, Paul. The first task that a virus must fulfill is: getting into the cell. Plant cells have very tough cell walls, so the virus needs help from insects that can sting through these cell walls. Once the virus is in, it gets a free ride, as plants don't have an immune system to eliminate the virus. But bacteriophages and animal viruses have to do the job alone. Viruses don't purely consist of genetic material; they also have a protein coat. Nucleic acid and protein together form a capsid. The protein plays an important role in attaching the virus particle to the outer surface of the cell. Proteins, by their very nature, are infinitely more variable (and interesting) than nucleic acids. They consist of chains of amino acids. There are about 20 such amino acids occurring in our body proteins. But not only the order of the amino acids in the protein (also called the peptide chain) is important: Also the shape in which the peptide chain is folded in 3-dimensional space. And that's what makes proteins so versatile. If a protein acts as an enzyme, its surface has a spot that can recognize and bind the substrate (which is the chemical compound the enzym acts upon). This is called the substrate-binding site. An enzyme has also an active site. That is the spot on the protein where the substrate undergoes the chemical reaction the enzyme can achieve. Because there are so many ways a protein can be constructed and folded, an enzyme can recognize certain chemical structures, and specializes in one type of chemical reaction. In other words: The enzyme is *specific* for a certain substrate, and has a type of activity all its own. Back to viruses now: This same kind of specificity is also displayed by virus proteins. So the coat protein of a virus (or its spikes, if the virus has them) can recognize certain points on the walls of its target cell. This feature makes viruses *specific* for a certain host. So a virus that is specific for mouse cells will not attach itself to a human cell. It "sees" nothing that it recognizes. What's that I'm hearing? A bird virus attacking humans? No way! But... What if the virus mutates? Well, that's possible. But then the virus must mutate in such a way that it happens to produce a new protein that is able to recognize and attach itself to human cells. Mutation is a random event, so what's the probability that that will happen? Besides, resting virus particles outside the host cell don't produce any protein, so this kind of mutation could only happen inside the cell. Possible? Yes. Probable? Ya gotta be kiddin'! So let's assume a virus particle passes by a cell it recognizes, attaches itself to it, and enters. Now what? That depends on the virus. Some viruses contain DNA (Bacteriophages, Herpes, Cytomegalovirus, Papillomavirus), others contain RNA (Plant viruses, Polio, Influenza). Since the work of Watson and Crick during the fifties, it was thought that genetic information was strictly passed on in the direction: DNA --> RNA --> proteins. That turned out not to be the case. DNA viruses do indeed follow this pattern. The capsids of Herpes Virus, for example are made inside the cell nucleus. It acquires its lipid envelope while passing through the nuclear membrane into the cytosol (the soluble part of the cell, the cell plasma). Most RNA viruses, however, just ignore the cellular DNA (they don't "eat" it), and the viral RNA acts as its own genome, replicating directly, and coding for the proteins it needs to produce. The building blocks to make the RNA chain (ribonucleotides) and the protein chains (amino acids) are supplied by the cell. So are the enzymes to do all the manufacturing. The virus RNA just directs. Retroviruses are a strange breed. They contain RNA, but they first go the "wrong" way by coding for a virus-related DNA. Again, the cell supplies the building blocks, namely deoxyribonucleotides. For this process, a special enzyme is needed, called reverse transcriptase. Meanwhile, the host cell DNA is still there, "watching all the action". When the proviral DNA is ready, it can be integrated into the host cell genome. It sits there, doing nothing, until the cell divides (which is a very natural thing for most cells to do). The proviral DNA is then inherited by the daughter cells. >"And is my understanding correct that RNA is the "contractor" and that DNA is the "building material" from which the contractor can contstruct a shed or a skyscraper, depending upon what "blueprint" the RNA has?" No, that's not correct. The cell DNA is not used in any way as building material. The cell has its own normal metabolism, so it can synthesize nucleotides (the building blocks of nucleic acids) and most amino acids. (the building blocks of proteins). The viral nucleic acid just butts in and orders its own products. > It's a lot more complicated than that, Paul. I think you should call him "Igor" instead. B/ Iconoclaster seems to know his stuff. Question for him: have you read any of Ray Peat's essays/newletters or any books by Gilbert Ling? You can get the basics of the Ling hypothesis at gilbertling.org and Peat has a site with several free essays, just search google for "ray peat newsletter" Thank you, Montygram. I'll check those links. I haven't read any of these references so far. >It's a lot more complicated than that, Paul. And I remember learning this stuff in school, but it's coming back to me very S-L-O-W-L-Y... The problem is trying to understand this in a slow-response venue (this discussion group), especially since there are no visuals to accompany what I am re-learning. ---------------------- So, Iconoclaster, I am beginning to wonder if the way to really bring this Bad Boy down is through molecular biology, or through *mathematics.* I realized that earlier, when I was debating with Da Boys, that I was "framing" and "re-framing" the debate using simple mathematical equations. ---------------------- The HIV pandemic = unprotected vaginal sex in Africa AND The HIV pandemic = unprotected anal sex in the rest of the world BUT Unprotected vaginal and/or anal sex in straight porn industry does NOT = the HIV pandemic. It just *doesn't* add up! ----------------------- So, maybe, what I need to be learning is higher mathematics to help bring this paradigm down - and all who support it to their collective knees - by studying mathematics, instead! Besides, I have a YEN for Quantum Physics and would *really enjoy* learning more about what makes the universe tick. -Paul Whiting >>It's a lot more complicated than that, Paul. > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > The HIV pandemic = unprotected anal sex in the rest of the world Both of the above premises are not accurate, what makes you think they are Paul? > BUT > > Unprotected vaginal and/or anal sex in straight porn industry does NOT = > the HIV pandemic. > > It just *doesn't* add up! Only for the logically challenged such as yourself...... > ----------------------- > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Besides, I have a YEN for Quantum Physics and would *really enjoy* > learning more about what makes the universe tick. Molecular biology getting to be to difficult for you Paul or did you realize that real science won't be much help to you in affirming your faith in your own invincibility to HIV's health effects. Gary Stein >"pauleewhiting" <pauleewhiting@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> Unprotected vaginal and/or anal sex in straight porn industry does NOT = [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Only for the logically challenged such as yourself...... Okay, Gary, why don't you explain to everyone how "HIV" HAS NEVER BECOME AN EPIDEMIC IN THE STRAIGHT PORN INDUSTRY, despite all that vaginal *and* anal sex WITHOUT ANY condoms and with hundreds of multiple partners... How is it "HIV" can tell the difference between heterosexuals in Africa and heterosexuals in the porn industry, when "HIV" has now spread worldwide? Why is Africa the *only* continent in the entire world where the "straight plague" is occurring, despite a veritable cesspool of opportunity to spread like wildfire over the last twenty-plus years in Straight Porn Land with all the hot, nasty barebacking going on? Why didn't "HIV" spread from the *heterosexual* population on the African continent to the *heterosexual* population in the rest of the world? Why did it "jump" directly into the homosexual population? Why did it start out being primarily transmitted through heterosexual sex, but miraculously transferred to homosexual sex when it left Africa? And why hasn't it "jumped back" to become a plague among heterosexuals who are engaging in *known* high-risk behaviour? Where is the "Straight Plague" in Porn Land, Gary? >> So, maybe, what I need to be learning is higher mathematics to help >> bring this paradigm down - and all who support it to their collective [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >that real science won't be much help to you in affirming your faith in your >own invincibility to HIV's health effects. As, I stated before, Gary: "The problem is trying to understand this in a slow-response venue (this discussion group), especially since there are no visuals to accompany what I am re-learning." -Paul Whiting --------------------------------- By the way, it's nice to know you disagree with Einstein regarding science and faith... "I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details." --Albert Einstein. >>"pauleewhiting" <pauleewhiting@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>> Unprotected vaginal and/or anal sex in straight porn industry does [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > *and* anal sex WITHOUT ANY condoms and with hundreds of multiple > partners... Simply that testing for HIV has been a SOP in the straight porn industry for decades Paul. Also there have been AIDS deaths in the straight porn industry actors and actresses. > How is it "HIV" can tell the difference between heterosexuals in Africa > and heterosexuals in the porn industry, when "HIV" has now spread > worldwide? It can't Paul what makes you think it can? > Why is Africa the *only* continent in the entire world where the > "straight plague" is occurring, despite a veritable cesspool of > opportunity to spread like wildfire over the last twenty-plus years in > Straight Porn Land with all the hot, nasty barebacking going on? Simply because what you say above is not true Paul. Africa is not the "only" continent in the entire world that has HIV and AIDS in heterosexual populations. The same is true in China, other Asian countries, Russia and yes in the US. > Why didn't "HIV" spread from the *heterosexual* population on the > African continent to the *heterosexual* population in the rest of the > world? It hasn't. > Why did it "jump" directly into the homosexual population? Did it? > Why did it start out being primarily transmitted through heterosexual > sex, but miraculously transferred to homosexual sex when it left Africa? How do you know the above is what happened? > And why hasn't it "jumped back" to become a plague among heterosexuals > who are engaging in *known* high-risk behaviour? It has Paul the fastest growing population in new HIV infections in the US is amongst people of color the majority of whom are not homosexuals. > Where is the "Straight Plague" in Porn Land, Gary? See above. >>> So, maybe, what I need to be learning is higher mathematics to help >>> bring this paradigm down - and all who support it to their collective [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > discussion group), especially since there are no visuals to accompany > what I am re-learning." So you admit it is to difficult for you to understand so your looking for a way to weasel out of your claims that you were going to use a new understanding of molecular biology to prove that HIV does not exist and does not cause AIDS. Gary Stein > >>"pauleewhiting" <pauleewhiting@hotmail.com> wrote in message > >>> Unprotected vaginal and/or anal sex in straight porn industry does [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > decades Paul. Also there have been AIDS deaths in the straight porn industry > actors and actresses. gary, you are at risk for full blown aids. >> >>"pauleewhiting" <pauleewhiting@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >>> Unprotected vaginal and/or anal sex in straight porn industry does [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > gary, you are at risk for full blown aids. Copi no I have full blown AIDS and have since 1995. Gary Stein >So you admit it is to difficult for you to understand so your looking for a >way to weasel out of your claims that you were going to use a new >understanding of molecular biology to prove that HIV does not exist and does >not cause AIDS. Gary, sweetheart... "AIDS" started out in Africa, right? And "HIV" started out being spread in the *heterosexual* population, right? And, yet, it first appeared *outside of Africa* in the *homosexual* population, right? So, when "HIV" spread from Africa, it went from a primarily-heterosexual method of transmission (vaginal sex) to a primarily-homosexual method of transmission (anal sex), right? Thus, "HIV" - literally - JUMPED from primarily being transmitted through vaginal sex to being primarily transmitted through anal sex, right? And, yet, in the straight porn industry - where BOTH vaginal AND anal sex WITHOUT CONDOMS is the rule, NOT the exception - there is ***NO EPIDEMIC*** of "HIV" transmission, right? So, "HIV" never "jumped back" to being spread in ***epidemic proportions*** in the heterosexual population OUTSIDE OF AFRICA. Otherwise, the straight porn industry would *have to* enforce the use of condoms for BOTH vaginal AND anal sex out of responsibility to the models, just like in the gay porn industry. And that has NEVER HAPPENED. Have you seen a straight porn lately? THEY ARE BAREBACKING LIKE THERE IS NO TOMORROW. Again, "Where is the 'Straight Plague' in Porn Land?" -Paul Whiting >>So you admit it is to difficult for you to understand so your looking > for a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > And "HIV" started out being spread in the *heterosexual* population, > right? We do not know if that is true or not Paul. There is very little data as to the early days of HIV in Africa. > And, yet, it first appeared *outside of Africa* in the *homosexual* > population, right? Yes with the condition that there have been HIV tests done on stored blood samples from prior to the group of cases in New York and San Francisco that are credited with the beginning of the HIV epidemic in the US, and many of those that were positive were not from homosexuals. > So, when "HIV" spread from Africa, it went from a primarily-heterosexual > method of transmission (vaginal sex) to a primarily-homosexual method of > transmission (anal sex), right? No we have no way of knowing that. > Thus, "HIV" - literally - JUMPED from primarily being transmitted > through vaginal sex to being primarily transmitted through anal sex, > right? No. > And, yet, in the straight porn industry - where BOTH vaginal AND anal > sex WITHOUT CONDOMS is the rule, NOT the exception - there is ***NO > EPIDEMIC*** of "HIV" transmission, right? Depends on what you mean by epidemic, there have been HIV and AIDS cases in straight porn actors and actresses, the industry has done a good job of requiring HIV testing among it's participants and barring anyone with a positive test from working in the industry. > So, "HIV" never "jumped back" to being spread in ***epidemic > proportions*** in the heterosexual population OUTSIDE OF AFRICA. No that is not true HIV is predominantly a Heterosexual disease in China, Asia, India, and Russia as well as Africa. And is quickly moving in that direction in the US. Gary Stein >"pauleewhiting" <pauleewhiting@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> And, yet, in the straight porn industry - where BOTH vaginal AND anal [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >requiring HIV testing among it's participants and barring anyone with a >positive test from working in the industry. Gary, Pumpkin... Question: What happened to barebacking in the gay porn industry once "HIV" started to spread like wildfire? Answer: CONDOMS. That has NEVER HAPPENED in the straight porn industry. BAREBACKING IN STRAIGHT PORN IS RAMPANT. Yet, the spread of "HIV" in straight porn is NOT rampant. The evidence of this is the **lack of condoms** for both vaginal and anal sex among models in the straight porn industry. Have you watched straight porn lately? Do you see those guys f.cking those girls with condoms? The answer is HELL NO, YOU DON'T SEE IT. So, with all of the straight barebacking going on - within a VERY HIGH-RISK group, why isn't there a "straight plague" in porn land among heterosexual porn stars, like there was a years ago in gay porn? Remember all those gay porn stars dropping like flies? How come their straight counterparts have not experienced the same "epidemic of HIV" despite all of that bareback sex? "HIV" is worldwide now, remember? We are *all* at risk, remember? So, again, where is the "Straight Plague" in Porn Land? -Paul Whiting (massive snip) > So, again, where is the "Straight Plague" in Porn Land? As I have told you three times already and you have failed to acknowledge. The straight porn industry has been very proactive regarding HIV and for 20 years has required HIV testing of all it's performers and bans any HIV positive person from working in the industry. So that is how they have controlled HIV within the industry. Gary Stein > (massive snip) > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Gary Stein It has always amazed me that dissidents cite the porn industry as "proof" that HIV does not cause AIDS. In fact it is very good evidence that HIV and not copious amounts of semen or recreational drugs does cause AIDS. The simple protocol of insisting that all performers/actors take regular HIV tests and that any person who tests positive is banned immediately keeps the incidence of HIV to a minimum. These actors can have sex with each other as mnay times as they want or are paid to and as long as none of them are infected with HIV then no transmission will occur. They will of course expose each other to lots and lots of "oxidising agents" and "foreign proteins" that dissident claim cause AIDS. But they don't get AIDS. I would also say that on average porn actors also take more recreational drugs than the general population. Other dissidents claim that it is the recreational drugs that cause AIDS. >From a dissident perspective porn actors should be dropping dead from AIDS. They aren't. Chris Noble >> (massive snip) >> > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Chris Noble What do you want to bet that not a single dissident will respond to this post Chris? Gary Stein You lost your bet, Mr. Stein. > You lost your bet, Mr. Stein. The act of offering to bet on it changed the odds. However Gary was essentially correct. No-one has addressed the "paradox" in Dissident Science. Straight porn stars are exposed to large quantities of oxidising agents. According to Dissident Science a large number should be getting AIDS. They aren't. When you separate HIV from the oxidising agents by stringently testing for HIV then you remove the danger. Now we could bet on whether we get an intelligent reply to these points. Chris Noble Oh, Mr. Noble, the porn stars do develop immune suppression. But they aren't called AIDS because the actor/actress is not antibody positive. Want to know why?? Because in porn the performers are not tested by antibody....they are tested by PCR. And it ain't HIV RNA either. It is HIV DNA. Remember the PCR study I posted wanting a comment from you when you were so critical of De Harven? Well, that is the PCR that is used in porn. Here is the study again, just in case you forgot. 1 Defer C, Agut H, Garbarg-Chenon A, Moncany M, Morinet F, Vignon D, et al. Multicentre quality control of polymerase chain reaction for detection of HIV DNA. AIDS 1992;6:659-663. 2 Poor sensitivity, specificity, and reproducibility of detection of HIV-1 DNA in serum by polymerase chain reaction. The Transfusion Safety Study Group. Busch MP, Henrard DR, Hewlett IK, Mehaffey WF, Epstein JS, Allain JP, Lee TH, Mosley JW. Irwin Memorial Blood Centers, University of California, San Francisco. A series of recent studies have reported detection by the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) of cell-free human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) DNA (as opposed to virion RNA) in serum from both seropositive and seronegative persons. To evaluate the sensitivity, specificity, and reproducibility of PCR detection of cell-free HIV-1 DNA, we distributed coded panels containing 98 serum specimens obtained from well-characterized, infected individuals and control blood donors to the two laboratories with reported experience with this technique. Positive results were reported with HIV-1 gag primers (SK38/39) for 48 of 188 separate PCR determinations on DNA extracts from 44 serum samples from seropositive patients (25.5% sensitivity). HIV-1 gag signal was also reported for 28 of 151 PCR determinations on 34 samples from noninfected blood donors (18.5% false-positive rate). PCR for HIV-1 env DNA performed in one laboratory was negative on all specimens from seropositive and seronegative patients. Results for cell-free HIV-1 gag and human genomic (beta-globin or HLA DQ-alpha) DNA were inconsistent on replicate and serial specimens evaluated within each laboratory and between laboratories. These results indicate that current techniques for detecting cell-free HIV-1 DNA in serum lack adequate sensitivity, specificity, and reproducibility for widespread clinical applications " We know that to err is human, but the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is one hell of a mistake" Dr. Kary Mullis, Nobel Laureate and inventor of Polymerase Chain Reaction. And here, Mr. Noble, is a link that will indicate that a Miss Laura Roxx was tested and found to be positive by PCR HIV DNA. Notice that no other test was used- http://www.news-medical.net/print_article.asp?id=609 Sincerely, Michael Kilduff " We know that to err is human, but the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is one hell of a mistake" Dr. Kary Mullis, Nobel Laureate and inventor of Polymerase Chain Reaction. > And here, Mr. Noble, is a link that will indicate that a Miss Laura Roxx > was tested and found to be positive by PCR HIV DNA. Notice that no > other test was used- > > http://www.news-medical.net/print_article.asp?id=609 Did you read anything from that link? "As of this afternoon 4/15/04, Laura Roxx, was detected HIV positive by PCR/DNA. We Have taken more speciments for viral load, and other confirmatory tests." Viral load measures HIV RNA. Othe confirmatory tests would include antibody tests although depending on the time of infection they may not show anything. This is why they were using NATs in the first place. Chris Noble Seems to me Supersport was right when he mentioned: "Notice that no other test was used". They mention having taken more samples; they never say anywhere that they have been actually used. > Seems to me Supersport was right when he mentioned: "Notice that no other > test was used". > They mention having taken more samples; they never say anywhere that they > have been actually used. http://aim-med.org/faq.html AIM has done over 50,000 test over 5 years and we have had only 2 false positives and no false negatives. We also confirm each positive result by the standard Western Blot and RNA (viral load test). Chris Noble Chris Noble wrote... >>Seems to me Supersport was right when he mentioned: "Notice that no other >>test was used". [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > positives and no false negatives. We also confirm each positive result > by the standard Western Blot and RNA (viral load test). Notice that aside from testing, AIM also uses quarantine to prevent further spread of the virus. In other words, once an porn star tests positive, he/she is forbidden from performing. Compare this to HIV testing in the ordinary world, where a positive test result just means the infectee is "counseled" and turned loose to infect as many others as possible. One would think gays would be among the most vocal advocates of real-world quarantine, as it would ensure their right to be as promiscuous as they desire with no worry. Straight porn stars are about the only group on earth that can match the promiscuity of average homosexual men, yet their rate of HIV is almost zero. Even gay porn stars don't have the same confidence, every gay porno I've seen made in the last decade uses condoms. I would take AIM's policy one step further, requiring weekly tests instead of monthly. From what I know, the first few days after exposure the person is non-infectious, as the virus is just gaining a foothold in the body. The second to third weeks are when it goes into a replication frenzy, causing those "flulike symptoms" and the person would seem to be highly contagious. I thought I read the PCR tests were sensitive enough to detect the virus within 72 hours of infection at most, so I think the added expense of weekly testing (maybe bi-weekly) is warranted. snip >Notice that aside from testing, AIM also uses quarantine to prevent >further spread of the virus. In other words, once an porn star >tests positive, he/she is forbidden from performing. Forbidden from performing is not the same as quarantine. But your goal is to cause further spread of stigma, discrimination and fear mongering, like a good little nazi. We know what those views do to the world. They are a disease that needs to be healed as much as any. George M. Carter GMCarter wrote... > snip > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Forbidden from performing is not the same as quarantine. Uh, it is quarantine within the porn industry. Of course they are as free as any other American with HIV to spread the virus to others, just not their fellow porn stars. > But your goal is to cause further spread of stigma, discrimination and > fear mongering, like a good little nazi. > > We know what those views do to the world. They are a disease that > needs to be healed as much as any. Yes, my views are so much more destructive than a deadly contagious disease. Discrimination is so bad, perhaps the ADA should be applied to the porn industry so they can't discriminate against those actors with HIV. Because that will strain the workman's comp system, all porn stars will be required to wear biohazard suits to achieve the dual goals of non-discrimination and keeping insurance costs in check. >"From what I know, the first few days after exposure the person is non-infectious, as the virus is just gaining a foothold in the body. The second to third weeks are when it goes into a replication frenzy, causing those "flulike symptoms"" That's what you've been told, Mr. Mephesto. It ain't necessarily so. >>"From what I know, the first few days after >exposure the person is non-infectious, as the virus is just gaining a >foothold in the body. The second to third weeks are when it goes into a >replication frenzy, causing those "flulike symptoms"" > >That's what you've been told, Mr. Mephesto. It ain't necessarily so. Why should he believe you when a) you've continually and persistently shown how ignorant you are of the subject matter; and b) reliable sources from a range of disciplines and groups have shown what he says to be true? People that don't believe it wind up like David Pasquarelli. Dead too soon. As with many other HIV+ denialists. George M. Carter >>>"From what I know, the first few days after >>exposure the person is non-infectious, as the virus is just gaining a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Why should he believe you when he doesn't even know that's another Diablo sock.... B/ "Brian Mailman" <bmailman@sfo.invalid> wrote in message > > "Iconoclaster" <wgods@xs4all.nl> > > he doesn't even know that's another Diablo sock.... LOL, you caught me, I confess. Boi you faggots are sharp as tacks. I am Iconoclaster and Carter. Had you going huh? >I am Iconoclaster and Carter. LOL. Silly goose. or naughty devil? >>I am Iconoclaster and Carter. > > LOL. Silly goose. > or naughty devil? I vote for silly goosed. B/ "Brian Mailman" <bmailman@sfo.invalid> wrote in message > I vote for silly goosed. hahahahahaha, he said goosed. Even subconsciously your mind is never far from an a.shole one way or the other. >Even subconsciously your mind is never >far from an a.shole one way or the other. Hey, at least Brian Mailman consciously knows his legal name. What's yours "Death"? What was that? Oh, your dick is too small to post your legal name? God, I'm sorry, "Death"... Well, maybe you can get some girls to think you're "hot" by showing them you're a bigot! You could send them a link to this site and let them see what a "tough guy" you are by posting under an fake name. I am sure that will get their nipples real hard for ya, "Death." -Paul Whiting "GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message > >I am Iconoclaster and Carter. > > LOL. Silly goose. > or naughty devil? the question many women have asked but I didn't answer them either >the question many women have asked >but I didn't answer them either Is that because you were too afraid to tell them your real name when they asked that too? Did you simply write down "Death" on a cocktail napkin at the local bar and put your phone number down as starting with "555," just like in the movies...? I'm sorry, "Death" that you're so terrified to use your real name... -Paul Whiting > Seems to me Supersport was right when he mentioned: "Notice that no other > test was used". > They mention having taken more samples; they never say anywhere that they > have been actually used. http://aim-med.org/Quarantine.html As of 4/15/04, Laura Roxx, was detected HIV positive by PCR/DNA. We have taken confirmatory tests which validate her positive status. Chris Noble Yuck! They've even managed to make porn unappetizing in the Neo-Victorian Christian Republic of America. I got out at the right moment. > Oh, Mr. Noble, the porn stars do develop immune suppression. But they > aren't called AIDS because the actor/actress is not antibody positive. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Because in porn the performers are not tested by antibody....they are > tested by PCR. And it ain't HIV RNA either. It is HIV DNA. Are you saying that porn actors are never tested with antibody tests? Are you saying that if one of them tested positive with a NAT that they would not then test for HIV antibodies? > Remember the PCR study I posted wanting a comment from you when you were > so critical of De Harven? Well, that is the PCR that is used in porn. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > al. Multicentre quality control of polymerase chain reaction for > detection of HIV DNA. AIDS 1992;6:659-663. Cell free HIV DNA! Do you understand what this means? HIV DNA is normally found in the cell. It is not normally floating around in cell free fractions. You do find HIV RNA in cell free fractions. PCR tests test for cell associated HIV DNA. These are the tests that are used for screening and aids in diagnosis. The particular paper looked at cell free HIV DNA. Looking at cell free HIV DNA is not a highly sensitive method. It is not used. Can you comprehend the difference? Cell free HIV DNA. Cell associated HIV DNA Have you read the aper you keep on citing? Do you understand it? Chris Noble >"Cell free HIV DNA! Do you understand what this means?" No. I for one don't know what it means. DNA I can understand... but from HIV? How do they know? >"They will of course expose each other to lots and lots of "oxidising agents" and "foreign proteins" that dissident claim cause AIDS. But they don't get AIDS. I would also say that on average porn actors also take more recreational drugs than the general population. Other dissidents claim that it is the recreational drugs that cause AIDS." These are good points. I remember John Holmes, a very impressive performer (some of you would have called him a real pain in the a.s). He died young. A considerable time later, I suddenly read that he had died of AIDS. Of course! How could somebody indulging in something dirty and sinful as being a porn actor possibly die of anything else? But yet... He did die young. Was it drugs? A bad heart? Liver cirrhosis? We don't know. I must say, of all the theories about AIDS I find the virus-hypothesis the most ridiculous. But I don't buy most of the alternate theories either. Maybe we should stop seeing AIDS, which is really a hodgepodge of diseases as one medical condition. Maybe we should forget about the idea that a low level of lymphocytes can have only one cause. The human body is much too complicated for those one cause - one effect theoris. But what should have been done 20 years ago could have settled things quickly. That is, you get some animals: dogs, pigs, monkeys - and you try all kinds of combinations to see if an AIDS-like disorder results. Since in people you can't control for all kinds of these things, and it wouldn't be ethical anyway, there is no way to know how to think of "AIDS" (and if you ask people what they did, they often lie, underestimate, or forget), but the "HIV" stuff is truly the work of morons with advanced degrees. I've been around plenty of these people in my career, and if the public only knew how out of touch with reality (even scholarship) many of these people are they might never seek an "exepert's" advice again. > But what should have been done 20 years ago could have settled things > quickly. That is, you get some animals: dogs, pigs, monkeys - and you [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > (even scholarship) many of these people are they might never seek an > "exepert's" advice again. What makes you believe that wasn't done? Gary Stein Paul, I really doubt the usefulness of quantum physics when we're looking at biological systems. > Paul, > > I really doubt the usefulness of quantum physics when we're looking at > biological systems. While I also doubt the usefulness of Paul's version of quantum physics this is not true whem real quantum physics is applied. The activity of enymes is determined by interactions at the quantum scale. What other physics would you use? Chris Noble >"The activity of enymes is determined by interactions at the quantum scale. What other physics would you use?" I'm totally fascinated, Mr. Noble. Could you please elaborate a little on this subject? After all, this is Molecular Biology 101. So I'm as interested as all the other readers to get the straight poop on quantum interactions in biological systems. Perhaps Claster needs courses on molecular dynamics or quantum chemistry. Or perhaps he thinks Schrodinger is famous for owning a pet cat, and Rodriguez was a portuguese sailor.. Master David, are you a name dropper? Or do you think that throwing around scientific terms without being familiar with their meaning and implications is a good way to impress people? > Master David, are you a name dropper? Or do you think that throwing around > scientific terms without being familiar with their meaning and > implications is a good way to impress people? Does it work for you? Have you been able to figure out how to explain chemical bonding without quantum mechanics yet? Chris Noble >"Have you been able to figure out how to explain chemical bonding without quantum mechanics yet?" That wouldn't be possible, even if I'd waste my efforts on it. But we're not concerned with theoretical physics here. We're talking about biological systems. It's obvious you are trying to change the subject, which is: "How does a non-existing virus cause a decrease in CD4+ T-cells, and cause an epidemic in 29 flavors?" If you really want to discuss physics with me, I'll be happy to accept the challenge, but I must warn you: You're on thin ice there, too. >>"Have you been able to figure out how to explain chemical bonding without >quantum mechanics yet?" [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >which is: "How does a non-existing virus cause a decrease in CD4+ T-cells, >and cause an epidemic in 29 flavors?" That's of course the wrong question and rife with the kind of nonsense rhetoric for which you are reknowned. >If you really want to discuss physics with me, I'll be happy to accept the >challenge, but I must warn you: You're on thin ice there, too. Uh-huh. Sure. Given your track record here, that's just another hollow boast. George M. Carter > Perhaps Claster needs courses on molecular dynamics or quantum > chemistry. > Or perhaps he thinks Schrodinger is famous for owning a pet cat, and > Rodriguez was a portuguese sailor.. Perhaps Claster thinks Linus Pauling won his Nobel prize for his theories on vitamin C. Try explaining a chemical bond in a protein without using quantum mechanics. Try explaining how a protein folds without quantum mechanics. Try explaining the activity of an enzyme without quantum mechanics. Try explaining methods such as NMR and X-ray crystallography that are used to determine the structure of enzymes without quantum mechanics. Chris Noble >"Try explaining a chemical bond in a protein without using quantum mechanics." Don't worry, Mr.Noble. Linus Pauling's "Nature of the Chemical Bond" has been on my bookshelf (whenever I'm not reading in it) since 1950. But protein chemists have other things to to than philosophizing about electron densities in peptide bonds. >"Try explaining how a protein folds without quantum mechanics." >"Try explaining the activity of an enzyme without quantum mechanics." Totally ridiculous. Years go by without protein chemists and enzymologists even thinking about quantum mechanics. Have you taken up a book on protein structure or enzymes lately? Ever found one mentioning the Schrödinger equation at all? >"Try explaining methods such as NMR and X-ray crystallography that are used to determine the structure of enzymes without quantum mechanics." NMR? Well, yes. But only the physical basis of the method itself. For the applications to biochemical systems, quantum mechanics doesn't play a role at all. X-ray crystallography? I had very good contacts with the famous group of crystallographers at the MRC in Cambridge, England. Never even heard them say the word "quantum". Are you in England, Mr.Noble? Ask Sir Aaron. > >"Try explaining a chemical bond in a protein without using quantum > mechanics." [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > But protein chemists have other things to to than philosophizing about > electron densities in peptide bonds. And cooks don't concern themselves with the tertiary structure of proteins when they boil an egg. That doesn't change the fact that a true understanding of the phenomena involves just that. Chemistry is quantum mechanics. That doesn't stop some people getting chemistry degrees without understanding quantum mechanics. Chris Noble Iconoclaster wrote... > Paul, > > I really doubt the usefulness of quantum physics when we're looking at > biological systems. Don't be so sure. Everything emanates upward from the quantum level, all the laws of physics are derived from quantum fluctuations and that gives rise to chemistry which gives rise to biology. In fact, the laws of chemistry are highly dependent on quantum mechanics, for example electron orbits are a direct result of the Pauli exclusion principle. I just remembered something about Carbon-13 that is probably evidence of quantum effects on biological systems. Though chemically identical to Carbon-12, for some reason biological organisms seem to prefer C-12 to C-13, so that scientists can tell whether a given deposit of carbon is natural or the remains of dead organisms, because the ratio of C-12 to C-13 would be different from the natural ratio. >"I just remembered something about Carbon-13 that is probably evidence of quantum effects on biological systems." Could be. I've never worked with C13. But I did use C14, which is incorporated into biological systems with the same ease as C12. I didn't really mean to say quantum effects are absent in biological systems. But in practical measurements, you won't observe them at all at this level. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message